From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBSw7ZobGVy?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: burden of maintainance Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:46:15 +0200 Message-ID: <560D7F77.8060507@online.de> References: <560CEA6A.9000907@online.de> <834miaa847.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443726667 2706 80.91.229.3 (1 Oct 2015 19:11:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 19:11:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 01 21:10:57 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhjFp-0002hM-Cm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 21:10:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55530 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhjFo-0004rZ-T6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:10:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41376) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhis6-0001pE-3x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhis5-0006Un-7W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:55644) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhis1-0006TC-4q; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:46:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.178.31] ([77.12.88.20]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLWok-1ZiGpl3rYA-000fTu; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:46:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: <834miaa847.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:BtvIjIwu/vYj6Q2FVeZvMFZJ6ebgTHexLN5liqBtQW6RO9oTuYF eo5UELAthgPIo6protA5da8J0xFB9fBZ4z1XcoRaW0HAePlR4jkB3xO6LFxOE1HBWXrWWJF KB6VNvuyO/XU0DZAuu7n3DNdMqW2ap/If/PIzE8/fCjS3MNctkUhHdJq0bflIaSUW65QXlN ERAV9iOrkNmxtNwh3/MMw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:gTiL1RWlKWE=:g3uIu6nsFPdAzvx3257kVZ H+9mtn17rl+/hUZquRuXVEiH0XwazupTEe0i604gIj6UI2/uUewKXOp1BPatkaahpEAEKSkZH 7WAmTGfrpObCv65F0Q7hlFc6MH/Tr9rDd3oAgXTbi/pW6+Wh2U/+EQyPdXQivM8HxOy3EBDSW MDFgTvMFIVLHC7zdZH3ZuG8JMSl/LW54mjhs9ACXHTnM112FE27qPPYc7nl5XLvn4+kkQRydB g9IsKd8MjhZ2SM0hzGqr3p/BIJIYfhWuyNnIuMw/XWCZbRwEk9bXZ/w2FawiYEi4oqre/mgFq suIsIDcp+tMRRElbJcQnaCmda5ZVQmyM5USaU76m1x0Z54WopItIhmTKBX8Ok8O59lNFrloJq 5ZIoo8ATCAZ6aEcOjb/O80471bcYc8xIu3/wolfNiUqdTr+Bayaqtj7hoHqAZZ97f9wwtYf0s yJ6vjZiN5gEnga8NXURIXJW0bPggkRNBBWn9Mjz1hMbO4BVZkS4FZseC4X6GkHjUUIXRjeajn 9MWhP6Rcv3whiOApldXssQjUUcJXQynblS0NEcR6zFmFitC3CX1J+N3sI3EvgyFT5vpEnrqiM J9uLjdX0FDB3NsbXEm+5K3M5Ts1fi8QpdPabvluHtqU0e2qJYjmaxPXbkrxoiitz75lDOd1Qz zEK7HunNGyWDifMcoZyR/hfqrW8KME4ZPrHD1IiR5QmbgdmDjusp7pVi+I7CJgJbYE10JdLB/ bxAQlBRda/ILCNK7 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 212.227.126.130 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190580 Archived-At: Am 01.10.2015 um 18:03 schrieb Eli Zaretskii: >> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 10:10:18 +0200 >> From: Andreas Röhler >> >> as the burden of maintainance was mentioned: from reading the >> bug-reports got the impression, a more strict test-regime might reduce that. >> >> If a bug shows up, the first question should be: how it could survive >> the tests? >> Current commit-policy seems still a bit away from that. >> >> Will not being in favor of formalistic code-coverage technics, > Suggestions for how to improve our test suite without alienating > potential contributors are welcome. > > What about saying: no checkin before the tests passed? Coverage and quality of tests should be an integral part of developing. WRT to maintainance there are also redundancy, complexity which might be worked on. Keeping an eye at the number of symbols - too many blow up the language, make in harder for beginners than needed.