On Tuesday 08 of March 2016 13:29:13 Árpád Magosányi wrote:
> On 03/08/2016 10:33 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > On Monday 07 of March 2016 18:31:41 Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel> even patches from us to support pure open source build are not wanted
> >>
> >> I'm afraid this ^^ is misleading.
> >>
> >> Patches are welcome provided they include tests to cover the change.
> >> No tests -> no acceptance. It is in line with typical development
> >> model, isn't it?
> >
> > This is *your* easy excuse to not incorporate change ;). 100% coverage is
> > a sci-fi, as anybody must agree. What am I going to test on Fedora if I
> > patch osgi out? Am I going to test that it does not work? If yes, I'm
> > fine to write the patch.
> >
> > You refused attempts to post patches which would make some code optional,
> > at which point it is not useful to think about testing something.
> >
> > Other than that, not everything is easily testable in your actual CI.
>
> You hit my pet peeve here. We are not animals. Intelligent people do TDD,
> and clean code. The rest should write unit tests.
Please, what is this about? Feel free to be constructive, but I just try
to convince someone that we need to opt-out something. If we had 12
optional features, that is 2^12 possible tests, which is sci-fi.
I'm not telling to not do TDD, I'm not offensive. I do not tell that
people who do-write-unit-tests are animals or not-intelligent, neither I
divide people like that. I appreciate any work done the open source way.
Feel free to look at the comments Vladimir posted before, you'll see what
I mean by "no test, no acceptance". There was no space for discussion at
that time.
> TDD and clean code are the rules of software development as a
> profession. Simply because they are the only known practice to avoid
> fscking up the code.
Agreed, but it is orthogonal issue here.
> Of course there are cases which cannot be tested, but you have to provide
> a reason at least.
Thanks, we all agree on this.
