From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christian Ohler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: testing framework and package.el Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:36:04 +1100 Message-ID: <4CB47254.7000904@fastmail.net> References: <87tyladfnf.fsf@gmx.de> <4CA5DBA2.4050102@fastmail.net> <87tyl5i737.fsf@gmx.de> <4CA86026.1020000@fastmail.net> <87vd5jvw1q.fsf@gmx.de> <4CA9F483.8020000@fastmail.net> <87lj6dewf7.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4CAA7CA2.5050302@fastmail.net> <87zkut8d7y.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <4CB2D84E.5010405@fastmail.net> <87d3rg6rl9.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1286895119 14611 80.91.229.12 (12 Oct 2010 14:51:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:51:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , Sebastian Rose , Chong Yidong , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel Mailinglist To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 12 16:51:54 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P5gCn-0001eW-S6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:51:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36338 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P5gCm-0001zh-H4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:51:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43645 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P5fxg-0001wJ-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:36:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P5fxd-0004mo-6l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:36:15 -0400 Original-Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:34028) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1P5fxa-0004ly-FI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:36:13 -0400 Original-Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5D22F3; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:36:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=7gTmpHWMa0lgr0e8vsfUvZWh0sA=; b=JOtvgfzaYvzs6lpAk5sLqvXf3etP30IH5yLtJ5MLif6CtCY3uKLon0f1rxFdDZc+pLmNWYv3l4qdQbhdD+fkgpw8ixCe8GKSmgLpkVhES1rMT6J5j7uYxIF08fu8foky6C/a2dQryVdCHyTK1qqsYEKOWoGeG3KAApJixlb0vB0= X-Sasl-enc: VI5PFjVQNcUiATSNOdMVH78l02n/iTAJZzMylCmorDMg 1286894169 Original-Received: from ohler-macbookpro.local (unknown [113.197.106.249]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C4AA40418C; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:36:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:131636 Archived-At: On 12/10/10 20:41, Lennart Borgman wrote: > Is there any other way supporting backward > compatibility of the test than actually running them from time to time > in older versions? Rather than running the tests of Emacs version N in historical versions before N, we can run them in future versions after N. This is actually what happens naturally as the code evolves (assuming we run "make check" regularly), so it's very simple and requires no added effort. (Of course, this doesn't work for tests written after the fact.) As long as we don't touch a given test, we know that it's compatible. If we have to modify it to keep it passing, we know that there was an incompatible change. Christian.