Thanks to everyone for their comments, as well as the lack of SCM fighting.
:) Being on vista, it appears that my choices are a bit limited.
-Corey
On Jan 28, 2008 4:22 PM, Dan North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, bazaar deserves extra props because it's the scm powering a lot of
> the Ubuntu
On Feb 3, 2008 3:13 PM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for their comments, as well as the lack of SCM fighting.
> :) Being on vista, it appears that my choices are a bit limited.
>
I don't know about Vista, but being using bzr (http://bazaar-vcs.org/)
for 8 months and
I'll check that out, too, Luis. Thanks!
I'm currently reading up on mercurial, and it is very enlightening. I'll
admit that, being a .net developer by trade, I've not really been privy to
some of the stuff going on in scm, mostly stuck at a company still using
sourcesafe. Please no comments about
sourcesafe! I'm suggestively working on getting the company I'm at onto
Subversion instead.I feel your pain
On Feb 3, 2008 12:45 PM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll check that out, too, Luis. Thanks!
>
> I'm currently reading up on mercurial, and it is very enlightening. I'll
> adm
:) We are moving to TFS soon, which will be nice.
-Corey
On Feb 3, 2008 12:48 PM, Andrew WC Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sourcesafe! I'm suggestively working on getting the company I'm at onto
> Subversion instead.I feel your pain
>
> On Feb 3, 2008 12:45 PM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Thanks, Luis!
I'll do my best to post my findings on my blog.
-Corey
On Feb 3, 2008 1:00 PM, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 3:45 PM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'll check that out, too, Luis. Thanks!
> >
> > I'm currently reading up on mercurial, and it
On Feb 3, 2008 3:45 PM, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll check that out, too, Luis. Thanks!
>
> I'm currently reading up on mercurial, and it is very enlightening. I'll
> admit that, being a .net developer by trade, I've not really been privy to
> some of the stuff going on in scm, mo
I'm trying this:
firmware.should_receive(:execute).with("ATZ").once.ordered.and_return(AT_OK)
firmware.should_receive(:execute).with("ATE0V1").once.ordered.and_return(AT_OK)
firmware.should_receive(:execute).with("AT+CNUM").once.and_return(AT_OK)
But rspec does not complain that "AT+CNUM" is neve
Hi,
I dynamically generating routes and I'm running into trouble specing
due to isolation.
I need to know if there is a way to mock routes, I tried but not sure
how to approach it.
Let me describe what I'm attempting to do:
I have many nodes of different category types eg. polls, pictures, video
Hey guys, I'm trying to work out the order of development for features
in an app. I'm struggling with using stories to drive development.
So when looking at things, it seems to me to be the best idea to first
write stories, then view specs, then controller specs, then model
specs...but how
Nathan Sutton wrote:
> Hey guys, I'm trying to work out the order of development for features
> in an app. I'm struggling with using stories to drive development.
>
> So when looking at things, it seems to me to be the best idea to first
> write stories, then view specs, then controller specs,
On Feb 3, 2008 9:32 AM, herding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm just startingwith Rspec with the rails framework.
>
> I have a question regarding contexts.
>
> If I use a generator for a model, for example, user, I get a user_spec which
> I can place rspec specs.
>
> Should I be only hav
Hi,
I'm just startingwith Rspec with the rails framework.
I have a question regarding contexts.
If I use a generator for a model, for example, user, I get a user_spec which
I can place rspec specs.
Should I be only having one file per model? What is the convention for
naming and creating spec
On Feb 3, 2008 9:19 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys, I'm trying to work out the order of development for features
> in an app. I'm struggling with using stories to drive development.
>
> So when looking at things, it seems to me to be the best idea to first
> write stories,
> What is the convention for naming and creating specs when speccing out cross
> object behaviour?
I missed this. For stuff like mixins, I'll generally stick the module
definition under lib/ and have a corresponding spec under spec/lib.
Also I usually write the spec like
module NameableSpec
c
15 matches
Mail list logo
