On a separate note, if there are indeed "tons of bugs when it comes to cross-browser compatibility" in ClojureScript, pointing (as many as possible of) them out would be extremely helpful, indeed more than submitting the actual patches. That would also not require going through the patch submission process.
M. On 20 January 2013 23:15, Michał Marczyk <michal.marc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Clojure and contrib have long had extremely thorough CI in place, > including matrix testing with multiple JVM implementations: > > http://build.clojure.org/ > > Cheers, > M. > > > On 20 January 2013 22:04, Brandon Bloom <snprbo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think the inflammatory thread subject didn't help... >> >> Java and cross-browser CI both sound great. I don't know if Clojure/core >> already has CI or what, but maybe you should take these ideas over to >> another thread? Possibly on the Dev mailing list. Because of the >> intentionally slow pace of Clojure development, I'd suggest one thread per >> topic (CLJ CI is a different topic than CLJS CI) and one thread at a time. >> >> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:43:19 PM UTC-8, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: >>> >>> I just wanted to mention that pull request was one of the several notes >>> I've made, but looks like it's being irritating enough people that it >>> completely took over this thread. The problem itself is not a JIRA or that >>> sending patches is too hard (even though I think it's too much incidental >>> complexity :) problem is that in order to fix a bug I've encountered, I have >>> to go through a lot of hoops and that's too much for the first sip. Maybe >>> less for people doing Java based programs as I still have dark memories from >>> amount of configuring I have to do to actually get things running, but it >>> definitely is for people that or from other communities and if clojure is >>> not ready to accept people from different backgrounds what is the point of >>> speaking at jsconf >>> http://blip.tv/jsconf/jsconf2012-david-nolen-6141386 ? >>> >>> Now I think a lot of points have being completely missed here, pull >>> requests is just a tip of the iceberg, world has moved on from >>> sending patches to building great tooling like https://travis-ci.org/ >>> integration testing that verifies code quality of an each checking and even >>> those pull requests submitted, which saves a lot of time for both submitter >>> and maintainer that otherwise would have to >>> download patch, apply and run tests. Of course if you're Rich Hickey you >>> may find bugs in patches without doing all that, but if me sloppy >>> contributor can detect issues before patch reaches Rich would save his time >>> of looking at it. Not to say that I'm sure that even Rich could miss >>> something and having tooling that makes sure nothing breaks is useful. It's >>> actually very surprising to me that project of this size does not has >>> integration testing in place. >>> >>> Now it's not clear which browsers clojurescript is going to work but >>> regardless of claims it would be great to have facts. So my next step was to >>> setup integration tests with http://ci.testling.com/ that is like travis.ci >>> but runs your tests in all possible browsers & believe there are tons of >>> bugs when it comes to cross-browser compatibility. >>> >>> So it's not just that some people keep insisting on using pull requests >>> it's a lot more and maybe it's time for this community to revisit some >>> decisions. It's just natural process of grows. >>> >>> Regards >>> -- >>> Irakli Gozalishvili >>> Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ >>> >>> On Sunday, 2013-01-20 at 09:58 , Anthony Grimes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 11:33:56 AM UTC-6, Fogus wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> To make matters worse, Clojure/core consistently avoids discussing these >>> issues in public >>> >>> >>> I would guess because their position hasn't changed since the last time. >>> This is only speculation. A page like what Anthony proposes could help, but >>> it wouldn't satisfy everyone. Stuart Sierra wrote up something related, but >>> it doesn't cover everything discussed here >>> http://clojure.com/blog/2012/02/17/clojure-governance.html >>> >>> >>> Well, no, if the answer remains the same it probably won't satisfy >>> everyone, but at least they'll have an easy way to learn why. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Clojure" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com >>> >>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >>> your first post. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com >>> >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your >> first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
