[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Autotools GSoC ideas

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Autotools GSoC ideas
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 06:24:33 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 10:50:47PM CET:
> On Tuesday 08 March 2011, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > >  ``Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP).  If possible, try
> > >   to write an implementation that will allow future extensions to
> > >   similar but more advanced advanced protocols (e.g., subunit, which
> > >   is similar to TAP but slightly more structured, capable of handling
> > >   binary attachments, and so on).''
> > 
> > You could - or you could just write to the most capable and let folk
> > insert a filter (e.g. tap2subunit, included in the subunit package) if
> > they are using a different protocol themselves.
> >
> This seems a good approach from a design point of view; unfortunately, the
> existing filters in the `subunit' distribution all require python, which
> hampers portability in a way unacceptable for automake.

I don't think we need to do this kind of evaluation or decision at
this point yet.  It could be done as part of the project, or maybe a
project proposal.  Also, just because there may be only python filters
ATM, doesn't mean that needs to remain this way.

I've added the proposals to the wiki now.


reply via email to

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