[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       squeak-dev
Subject:    Re: Should SUnit be part of Basic? (was Re: Against package removal
From:       Doug Way <dway () riskmetrics ! com>
Date:       2003-06-30 18:25:35
[Download RAW message or body]

Doug Way wrote:

> goran.krampe@bluefish.se wrote:
>
>> Stephane Ducasse <ducasse@iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>>  
>>
>>>> Is SUnit an essential development tool?  I would say yes... we are 
>>>> trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and 
>>>> requiring test packages for Squeak-official packages.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> If BASIC means tools essential for development then SUnit should be 
>>> in. (but we should be able to remove it easily because new versions 
>>> of Sunit are coming :).
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Since it is still a package that is per definition. The only things we
>> are still adding as updates are fixes to stuff not yet in packages and
>> enhancements to stuff not yet in packages. We would never think of
>> adding a "packages" as an update.
>>
>> Anyway, I agree with Doug.
>>  
>>
>
> Probably what we should do is make it like the SqueakMap/SAR/etc 
> updates.  The current version of SUnit would be included as an update, 
> but it would also be registered as a loaded SM package.  (So that it 
> would show up in your list of installed packages in the SMLoader, and 
> you could upgrade to newer versions via SM, etc.)
>
> - Doug Way 


And to be clear, we would only include the SUnit package, not the base 
image tests or any other tests.

- Doug Way


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]