[parted-devel] [PATCH] mkpartfs ext2 2 10 would erroneously report "file system too small"

[Otavio Salvador]

David Cantrell <dcantrell at redhat.com> writes:

> Otavio, Jim.... First, you both have good points here, but I think we've
> missed something here with our unit testing framework.  Ideally, the
> developer shouldn't also be the one to write all the testing.  For
> maximum testing effectiveness, unit tests should be written by another
> person rather than the author.  We should think about this going
> forward.

Right I agree that it's the ideal but it's hard to get there for a FS
project.

> We also need to take in to account that the parted code base is not in
> great shape.  It's had many hands in it and we all are trying to bring
> it up to date and correct a lot of defects.  Jim's patch clears a make
> distcheck failure which, in my opinion, is more important in the short
> term than a unit test for the function.

I agree completely with you while I think we should at least wait for
a consensus _before_ commit.

> Jim is fixing code in libparted based on his available time, so if he's
> unable to do something we as a team want, we should pick up the slack
> and finish it up for him.

Sure and it has been doing like it since I joined the team. We always
helped each other and that's why we're called a _team_.

> As development progresses and we begin making more substantial changes
> to parted, we can start enforcing more strict policies such as requiring
> full unit testing for a new function at commit time.  For now, I think
> we should all be a little more flexible with regards to incoming
> patches.  If it fixes a bug, let's take it.

I don't agree completely. While I accept that it can slowdown the
development speed I also think that if we don't _try_ to produce
patches for every change we do we won't get a good unit testing.

Writting tests take time and I'm sure we all are busy people who lack
the need time to work at Parted and other projects, if we don't try to
keep them up they'll just die and then no useful tests will be written
since development has to be done.

>> Besides, there's a bad indentation on the commited patch, see:
>
> This is a different problem entirely.  Did we all ever agree on an
> indentation style?  We discussed it, but I don't remember a standard
> being agreed upon.
>
> I want spaces rather than tabs, 8 spaces per indentation level.  Tabs
> used in Makefiles for obvious reasons.  No more than 80 chars per line.

Sure it's a different problem but we need to define a standard for it.

I'd still want to write an indent script to format the whole tree code
and check against mistakes but I also think we _need_ to define the
code style before I can do it.

I personally dislike the 8 spaces and I'm starting to think that tabs
might grant the visual flexibility we might need. Most of time 2 or 4
spaces are enough and makes easier to avoid line breaks.

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio at debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."