[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: name of new pt-driver script

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: name of new pt-driver script
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:37:49 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Tuesday 14 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> [ adding the -patches list; sorry for appearing from the blue, the
>   rest of the discussion really was not really ontopic ... ]
> [ about the TAP/subunit proposal ]
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:09:25PM CEST:
> > On Monday 13 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > >
> > > So far the biggest issue I've seen was that I wouldn't call the script
> > > 'pt-driver', as basically all of the build-aux scripts are drivers of
> > > some sort,
> > >
> > Honestly, I see most of them as wrappers.
> Well, whatever they are, 'pt' is obscure,
Well, true.  And I'm ready to change that at any moment if you want
(maybe with a follow-up patch instead of amending the patches for the
umpteenth time?).  Just shoot out your preferred new prefix :-)

> and a 'driver' can drive all
> sorts of things.  'gcc' is a driver for cc1, 'make' is a driver for
> $(CC), and the kernel has all sorts of drivers too.  The name is
> nondescriptive and the term is used in too many contexts already.
> I like the "test-parallel" (or a similar) color better, and while I
> acknowledge that it's the painting of a bike shed, and my preference
> is not all that strong, it is one where users have stumbled over and
> complained.
OK, but I'm planning to speak about "custom test drivers" in the
documentation about the new features (and the term is already there
in the current sketchy documentation), so using the same term for
our helper scripts is the simplest and sanest thing to do IMHO.
Unless of course you also object about the term "driver" being used
in the documentation, which would move the debate beyond the "shed
colour" borders, and would force us to think about it more carefully.

> >  If you want more details
> > on this, I think we should bring the discussion public.
> Sure.
> Cheers,
> Ralf


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]