Re: designing a test suite for multiple implementations
在 2006/8/12 上午 3:01 時，jerry gay 寫到： for "managed," i have a few ideas. currently, the suite lives in the pugs repo. this is a fine first approximation, but i believe it will soon be time to move this suite (it doesn't make sense to keep the "official" tests in a non-official repo in the long term.) It's available in the official repo: http://svn.perl.org/perl6/pugs/trunk/t/ If you'd like to change the mirror point to http://svn.perl.org/perl6/t/ That's fine. However, currently the commit bit to that directory does not make it easy for people to help out, and while we can do this through a test-pumpking that reviews each patches and commit by hand, I don't think that's a wise move to take. It's true that "you need an openfoundry.org account to write tests for perl 6" may make people feel this to be less official. If we can get a good invitation system to hand out commit bits to svn.perl.org, I'm all for moving everything to there. Robrt had set one up for svn.perl.org/parrot/, but that is currently not actively promoted because of the policy that new committers to that directory has to sign TPF's Contributor License Agreement. If we can relax that policy for the perl6/ or perl6/t/ directory, so we can migrate the openfoundry committers over without them having to sign the CLA by paper -- digitally clickthrough would be fine -- then I agree that we can migrate everything to svn.perl.org. the question is, should it be moved into their own repository, or into the repo of the "official" perl6 implementation (if such a beast will indeed exist,) Currently the svn.perl.org repo is the most official-sounding one, by the domain name alone. (But I don't understand the motivation for putting the tests with "the true implementation" -- I thought the idea is to decouple the tests with any implementations.) So I think svn.perl.org is the right choice, if the admins are okay with a more relaxed commit bit policy there. Thanks, Audrey PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: designing a test suite for multiple implementations
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:06:27PM +0800, Agent Zhang wrote:
>is $got, $expected, todo :pugs<6.2.13>, :p6p5<0.110>;
>
> Happily, Audrey has already implemented the $?PUGS_VERSION variable,
> which can ease the implementation of such &todo subs:
I've added a %?CONFIG variable which I propose
each implementation support. Pugs says 'pugs'. Also, there's a
%?CONFIG so there's no need to parse $?PUGS_VERSION.
pugs> %?CONFIG{%?CONFIG ~ <_versnum>}
6.2.12
--
Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://gaal.livejournal.com/
Re: designing a test suite for multiple implementations
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 03:32:47PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote: > > ?b 2006/8/12 ?W?? 3:01 ???Ajerry gay ?g???G > > >the question is, should it be moved into their own repository, or > >into the repo of > >the "official" perl6 implementation (if such a beast will indeed > >exist,) > > Currently the svn.perl.org repo is the most official-sounding one, by > the domain > name alone. (But I don't understand the motivation for putting the > tests with > "the true implementation" -- I thought the idea is to decouple the > tests with > any implementations.) So I think svn.perl.org is the right choice, > if the admins > are okay with a more relaxed commit bit policy there. There's nothing technical stopping the Perl 6 tests being on svn.perl.org, but in a different svn repository from the current repositories, is there? Setting a svn:external property in the right place on both Parrot and Pugs would mean that both could check out the same testsuite, and both could commit back to it. Nicholas Clark
Re: designing a test suite for multiple implementations
在 2006/8/12 下午 6:15 時，Nicholas Clark 寫到： There's nothing technical stopping the Perl 6 tests being on svn.perl.org, but in a different svn repository from the current repositories, is there? Well, technically yes, except that SVK doesn't support svn:external yet. Setting a svn:external property in the right place on both Parrot and Pugs would mean that both could check out the same testsuite, and both could commit back to it. That's assuming that the new repo, say, http://svn.perl.org/ perl6tests/, can give out commit permissions to parrot and pugs committers, yes. But as Jerry's initial motivation was moving Perl 6 tests to a more official location, and that http://svn.perl.org/perl6/ is the official repo for the Perl 6 design documents, I wonder what's the advantage of hosting the tests in a separate repository. Can you elaborate on that? Thanks, Audrey PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: designing a test suite for multiple implementations
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:44:38PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote: > That's assuming that the new repo, say, http://svn.perl.org/ > perl6tests/, can > give out commit permissions to parrot and pugs committers, yes. > > But as Jerry's initial motivation was moving Perl 6 tests to a more > official > location, and that http://svn.perl.org/perl6/ is the official repo > for the > Perl 6 design documents, I wonder what's the advantage of hosting the > tests > in a separate repository. Can you elaborate on that? I thought that it might be easier to audit different committer bit policies if the repositories were different, instead of simply one being a subtree of another. That was all. Nicholas Clark
Re: designing a test suite for multiple implementations
[Time to stop spamming multiple lists. Followups to p6c for bikeshedding.]
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:30:22AM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:06:27PM +0800, Agent Zhang wrote:
: >is $got, $expected, todo :pugs<6.2.13>, :p6p5<0.110>;
: >
: > Happily, Audrey has already implemented the $?PUGS_VERSION variable,
: > which can ease the implementation of such &todo subs:
:
: I've added a %?CONFIG variable which I propose
: each implementation support. Pugs says 'pugs'. Also, there's a
: %?CONFIG so there's no need to parse $?PUGS_VERSION.
:
: pugs> %?CONFIG{%?CONFIG ~ <_versnum>}
: 6.2.12
That seems excessively...noisy. Maybe something more like:
%?COMPILER pugs => 6.2.12
%?COMPILER.key pugs
%?COMPILER.value6.2.12
or just a simple
%?COMP pugs
%?COMP_VERSION 6.2.12
or something OOey like
%?COMP.name pugs
%?COMP.version 6.2.12
Getting rid of a %?CONFIG hash was half the motivation for $? vars
in the first place.
In any event "versnum" sounds like "verse number" to people like me.
Larry
