bug-gnulib
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: Proposed Module: canonicalize-lgpl
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:41:25 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-11-01)

Hello Jim,

* Jim Meyering wrote on Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:54:33PM CET:
> 
> Gnulib needs more *automatic* consistency checks,
> especially now that coreutils "make syntax-check" rule
> and commit hook are no longer checking gnulib bits.

Quoting README:
| High Quality
| ============
| 
| We will be developing a testsuite for these applications.  The goal is
| to have a 100% firm interface so that maintainers can feel free to
| update to the code in CVS at *any* time and know that their
| application will not break.  This means that before any change can be
| committed to the repository, a test suite program must be produced
| that exposes the bug for regression testing.  All experimental work
| should be done on branches to help promote this.

Asking 'cvs annotate' how long this has been there:
| jbailey  22-Oct-01

$ ls modules/*-tests | wc -w
38
$ ls modules | grep -v -- -tests$ | wc -w
362

A daily build would be useful, but much more so if this ratio were a bit
higher...

FWIW, the check-module script would be more useful, too, if it did not
produce so many false positives:

$ cd modules; ../check-module * 2>&1 | wc -l
165

(I don't even know though how many of those are bogus)

Cheers, and apologies for not being more constructive,
Ralf




reply via email to

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