RE: [cdt-dev] Patches

["Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In practice, I don't think we'd reject a patch that doesn't have Junits.
But also in practice, as Elena was hinting at, if someone submits a
patch and I have no way to test it, or if it takes too much time to do a
manual test, I'm not likely to apply it. Unless the submitter does a
great job of convincing me they tested it thoroughly, and not just for
their specific needs.

We've had too many patches that work in one environment but break
others. We need to be cautious about that. That's the real bottom line.

Cheers,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.; CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Patches
> 
> Mixed feelings on this, bordering on -1. Great in theory, bad 
> in practice. As long as we never flat out reject a patch for 
> lack of a test, I'm +1.
> 
> I've submitted patches to projects outside CDT. Taking the 
> time to learn their test suite/infrastructure and update that 
> can be a fairly complex process. Take a look at the CDT 
> debugger junit tests and that will become obvious. I would be 
> very disappointed if a project would refuse my patch solely 
> on the grounds that I haven't submitted a test. So, I don't 
> want to create language that may lead CDT committers to take 
> that route. I guess a submitter could say "can't provide a 
> test case because I don't have the time to learn the tests". 
> As long as we accept that as a valid excuse, then I'm good 
> with this. This reduces your proposal to a suggestion.
> 
> We should be thankful that someone has made the effort to 
> learn the code and provide a fix rather than just open a bug. 
> Let's not add additional barriers.
> 
> One thing is for sure, submissions MUST be accompanied by 
> product-agnostic reproducibility steps, allowing for 
> exceptions where the bug is very obvious and providing 
> agnostic repro steps is not feasible.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> At 09:12 AM 11/7/2008, Schaefer, Doug wrote:
> >Emphatic +1.
> >
> >Thanks Elena.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elena Laskavaia
> > > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:48 AM
> > > To: CDT General developers list.
> > > Subject: [cdt-dev] Patches
> > >
> > > Regarding applying patches from contributors:
> > > If you submit a patch to cdt,
> > > please create junit test if you can or explain why it cannot be 
> > > created, it would greatly simplify patch applying process.
> > > Otherwise commiter has to try to reproduce (which sometime is not 
> > > easy at all) to re-test and create tests themselves which 
> is not as 
> > > much fun.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cdt-dev mailing list
> > > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >cdt-dev mailing list
> >cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>