From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19464 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2004 03:44:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19445 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2004 03:44:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tweedle.cabbey.net) (24.159.197.168) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Oct 2004 03:44:52 -0000 Received: from tweedle (tweedle [10.20.30.32]) by tweedle.cabbey.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03905 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:44:52 -0500 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:44:00 -0000 From: Chris Abbey X-X-Sender: To: Mauve News Group Subject: Re: jacks updates In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-q4/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 Yesterday, Tom Tromey wrote: > I also have a patch to change jacks to use tclsh8.4 -- I made this > change locally since FC2 doesn't ship tclsh8.3. If nobody objects > I'll make this change in the mauve cvs repository as well. I've been keeping a local copy of what I bet is the same patch for ages now... so I certainly have no objection to moving up to something modern. > Also, I have some tests (some by me, some posted to the jacks list > this year) for 1.5 things: boxing, foreach, and enums. In my > repository I have these in tests/non-jls/, but I suppose they probably > belong in tests/jls now. Chris, what do you think? I've never really been good at picking the location for where tests should go in the hierarchy... it's often a subjective issue. Perhaps tests/jcr/NNN/ ? > Also there's the question of what to do about code that was invalid > in 1.4 but is now valid in 1.5. For instance something like ... > we could mark them so > that we can continue testing compliance to 1.4 and 1.5. Personally, I'm inclined to like this idea... it's likely something we should make extensible, so for example a test could be marked as "expect fail on < 1.5, expect pass on >= 1.5" or similar. I think we ended up throwing away some tests that were expecting different behaviour in pre 1.2 than was seen on 1.2 and higher... and I'm sure there are tests that behave differntly on 1.0 than any other version... and we adjusted them with a bias against 1.0. (But 1.0 was a very different transition than 1.5 is... there was very little 1.0 code, everyone was clamouring for 1.1... I expect there will be a lot of Java2 code for a while, the move to Java5 won't be as fast.) -- Never make a technical decision based upon the politics of the situation. Never make a political decision based upon technical issues. The only place these realms meet is in the mind of the unenlightened. -- Geoffrey James, The Zen of Programming