Hi,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:52:39AM +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> OK. If you say that a more fuzzy proposal shouldn't cause problems at
> this point, I'll follow your lead.
In our experience, fuzzy proposals do not work well. Very few students
are up to making design decisions -- and cons
I would suggest that proposals offer useful hints and links to
information and concepts, but I would recommend against spelling the
proposals out in significant detail. The reason for this is that
sometimes students will do an excellent job of either regurgitating or
paraphrasing a proposal. It t
On Wednesday 09 March 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * 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
* 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
On Tuesday 08 March 2011, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Lattarini
> wrote:
> > I don't know how the GSoC proposals are evaluated, but if reviewers tend
> > to prefer more precise goals, extending the proposal in this way might
> > not be a smart move. Maybe somet
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> I don't know how the GSoC proposals are evaluated, but if reviewers tend
> to prefer more precise goals, extending the proposal in this way might
> not be a smart move. Maybe something like the following would be better?
>
> ``Interfacin
On Tuesday 08 March 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> * Robert Collins wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 02:57:44AM CET:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > I'll throw a couple of suggestions for Autotools out there:
> > >
> > > 1) Interfacing with the Test Any
Hi Robert,
* Robert Collins wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 02:57:44AM CET:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I'll throw a couple of suggestions for Autotools out there:
> >
> > 1) Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP) (or maybe another
> > test protocol?).
>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'll throw a couple of suggestions for Autotools out there:
>
> 1) Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP) (or maybe another
> test protocol?). Automake-generated Makefiles could be consumers of the
> protocol for third
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> 1) Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP) (or maybe another
> test protocol?). Automake-generated Makefiles could be consumers of the
> protocol for third-party testsuites. Automake-generated simple
> testsuites (TESTS) and Autoconf-generated Autotest testsu
Hello Ralf and all GNU hackers.
On Monday 07 March 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'll throw a couple of suggestions for Autotools out there:
>
> 1) Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP) (or maybe another
> test protocol?). Automake-generated Makefiles could be consumers
Hello,
I'll throw a couple of suggestions for Autotools out there:
1) Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP) (or maybe another
test protocol?). Automake-generated Makefiles could be consumers of the
protocol for third-party testsuites. Automake-generated simple
testsuites (TESTS) and
12 matches
Mail list logo
