Re: GNOME goal candidates

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 13:40 +0000, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 1 March 2017 at 13:26, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro gnome org>
It sounds like most everyone else supports installed tests. OK,

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:22 +0000, Philip Withnall wrote:
I agree that developers need to be engaged with adding more unit
and code coverage if such a goal is to be useful. I wonder if
a goal would kick-start some people to do that? I don’t think we
ever expect the majority of maintainers to care about (or have
time to care about) code coverage and unit testing — but GNOME
have been useful catalysts in the past. I guess a suitably well
publicised and tutorialised blog post would work just as well

This is the other thing. The goals should be achievable, something
can look at in a year or two and say "all apps meet the goal" and
it, not a longstanding epic that stays open forever. The installed
tests and coverage goals do not really qualify. Even though more
are definitely desirable, I don't think it's reasonable to use the
GNOME Goals project for this, even if it would be nice to see as
projects as possible adopting it.

Maybe I am being too negative here. It does seem odd to say that
something desirable should not be a goal. But a longstanding pie-
the-sky project is very different from existing goals. Switching to
g_timeout_add_seconds() or adding a GtkHeaderBar are quick tasks
all apps should be able to accomplish easily. Adding a
testsuite, not so much. And adding just one or two installed tests,
while a good starting point, is not very useful on its own.

At some point, Gnome Goals become "best practices for GNOME projects"
— especially because new projects should conform to these goals by

I'm all for taking all the present and past GNOME Goals pages on the
wiki and turning them into "Best Practices for GNOME projects" —
applicable. Additionally, every cycle we can evaluate where we are on
the completion of every goal, and if the completion rate passes a
certain threshold we simply close the goal and move the page to the
"best practices" section.

+1, although I think such documentation should go in gnome-devel-docs,
rather than on the wiki. Cross-referencing it and finding it is a lot
easier in gnome-devel-docs.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]