Re: GNOME goal candidates

[Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet gnome org>]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:12:17PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 14:22 -0500, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-
> list wrote:
> > I think installed test etc it's not going to happen or be maintained
> > if we don't enable coverage with it too. I think that's the actual
> > trick that will keep us up with the initiative.
> >
> > So I would go with both since the start, and together.
>
> OK then. Does anybody want to take ownership of this? It'd require
> updating the goal pages to match the new best practices, maybe merging
> them together, and updating the list of affected modules.

I can take ownership of:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/AddCodeCoverage

I will update the description.

For the list of modules, I can merge the current list with the list
from:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/Template

I'll not actively see if more modules can be marked as done, nor file
bugs for every module, that's a task for each individual module
maintainer.

I'm not sure it is a good idea to merge the two goals (installed tests +
code coverage). When filing a bug in bugzilla, it should cover only one
task. The installed tests make sense only if it'll actually be used, for
example by GNOME Continuous. I don't know if all modules listed in the
Template page are built by GNOME Continuous.

--
Sébastien