Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Patches

I had the same reaction and concerns about this: I think the most important
thing is to have a solid repro case which is not the same as the contributor
supplying a junit test.

- Ken

> From: ext John Cortell <john.cortell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:20:23 -0600
> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "CDT General
> developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top