Welcome to the Jungerl!
Tue Feb 25 04:34:25 CET 2003
Kent Boortz wrote:
>Sean Hinde <> writes:
>>I do think this will need some active management from someone who gets a
>>kick out of organising things (i.e. defintely not me!) To be useful for the
>>widest audience we really need to avoid it becoming Junkerl.. Like should we
>>have a new project called
>>random_build_tools_which_are_all_useful_but_dont_work_together?! I guess the
>>project mailing list is the place to sort these issues out.
>Maybe to much work but I think the best way to maintain code like this
>is to include some sort of automatic testing similar to what we do
>with OTP. Create a cron job on some test machines that
> Update the local CVS tree from the CVS repository at sourceforge.
> Build from the sources. This is the most basic test ;-)
> Run some tests for each contribution. Even trivial tests like to
> start and stop an application is better than nothing. Maybe using
> the test server. The test server may look complicated at first but
> once you have got it running it is really easy to add new tests to
> it. The test result will be HTML pages that can be made public. The
> result page for each test links to the test source for that test so
> in a way the tests are also examples of how to use the contributed
I have a test suite for the xmlrpc package (I will add it as well)
and to start
it I just:
$ cd lib/xmlrpc/test
<run all tests producing stdout noise and either suceed or fails>
Dead simple. Going for the test server for jungerl is overkill IMO.
I propose that we go for the dead simple approach when it comes to
requirements on each lib as well.
More information about the erlang-questions