[Gc] Maintainers attention: libatomic_ops

Henning Makholm makholm at octoshape.com
Wed Sep 30 08:02:21 PDT 2009

> Show the GC-related ones.
> Show the GC-related ones.
> Show the GC-related examples.

So you're arguing for omitting the possibility of testing
things until they have been conclusively shown to fail, not
only in general but in the very same project?

That's not what testing is for.

>> No, what I'm talkin about is code that works with one version of the
>> tools and fails to work with another version of the tools, because
>> something it depended on had changed in the mean time.
> If your code depends on the version of the build tools beyond requiring a
> minimum version for a certain feature, you're doing something wrong.

Perhaps so. That's why it is important for it to be possible to
FIND OUT that something has been done wrong.

>> Wrong -- build scripts also need to be tested.
> "make distcheck" by the release manager will do, providing that "make
> check" is reasonably complete to exercise the relevant parts.

No it won't, not if the things that fail to work are for platforms that
the release manager do not have available for testing.

> You can always distribute the tarballs generated that way to testers
> on other platforms and achieve the same kind of testing as you do
> today,

Testing that is delayed until late in the release cycle is not "the same
kind of testing" as allowing the one who develops a patch to test it
WHILE HE DEVELOPS IT, with the same autotools version that will eventually
be used to generate a tarball.

> without a need to pollute CVS with autoreconf-generated files.

I fail to see how it is relevant to this discussion whether the generated
files are in CVS or not.

 1) If (as I argue) all developers agree on which autotools versions are to
    be used for development in the project -- then having the generated files
    in CVS is generally more trouble than it is worth, mostly because updates
    of generated files from CVS are likely to confuse the regeneration logic.

 2) If (as I argue against) each developer chooses his own favorite version
    of autotools independently and then blindly checks in build-related code
    that has been tested only on that version, in the hope that it will still
    work on whatever (older, newer, who knows) the release manager uses
    -- then having the generated files in CVS is *definitely* more trouble
    than it is worth, because (in addition to bloat) whether things work or
    not with a fresh checkout will depend on who last did a commit.

Henning Makholm
Octoshape ApS

More information about the Gc mailing list