On 1/29/2017 9:49 AM, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:59 AM, 7heo <7heo_at_mail.com> wrote:
>> I am really confused that you want to use a wrong vocab because GNU software already use it. Plus, it was my understanding that our tool's name isn't 'make' (since it's about identical terms).
> Has very little to do with GNU software, "make check" is #2 most
> frequently used in APKBUILD to invoke the testsuite behind "make
> test". "test" is a shell built-in and cannot be used, as others have
> said in the thread. The reason why "make check" is used so
> frequently, is because those packages have an automake-based build
Yes, it was my understanding that the choice of "check" as an
alternative to "test" isn't a core belief of the GNU community. However,
it is proposed here because it occurs often, and it occurs often because
it is used in a GNU software. That's nothing new and is what I meant: I
do not want to repeat the mistakes made by communities we do not wish to
follow (please tell me if you think I'm wrong), because of their choices
TL;DR: Why would we perpetuate a mistake "because it's popular"? I
thought that this was the very idea alpine was against.
>> I understand that for many people this discussion may seems like a waste of time, but using the correct vocabulary is an essential part of code-as-documentation.
>> Going with check is not a huge inaccuracy I admit; but it will most likely effectively hinder the understanding of newcomers while lowering the learning curve for GNU people/users.
> I'm not really convinced that any new packager will be hindered any
> further by that considering that we can explain it in the "how to
> write an APKBUILD" guide. We should not make decisions based on
> people who do not read docs.
Here, I couldn't disagree more. I would never ask every user, every
developer, ever person who ever uses a software to read their entire
documentation thoroughly. There are bits such as proc(5), queue(3) and
perf_event_open(2) that are just too big. And that is just the tip of
the iceberg. One of the main reasons why the UNIX philosophy is so
popular among seasoned geeks is because they can grok most things
without having to consult the documentation every ten minutes or so. And
that is because of the high reuse of ideas and concepts as much as the
sensible choice of vocabulary.
>> I can explain in a separate mail (or on IRC) why I think it is a bad enough idea to attract GNU contributors to alpine, to justify continuing this discussion; but I'll assume here that all alpine contributors share a similar view on the GNU code style.
> That's not very nice. We should, and do, welcome anyone who wants to
> contribute as long as their contributions are in line with the project
That is not what I said. Nor what I wanted to talk about. Attracting
people isn't at all the same as accepting them. What I meant is that we
shouldn't favor GNU contributors over random contributors.
>> So, does anyone agree?
> I agree that some care should be taken to ensure the tests verb is
> well known. This is why I chose "check" as an alternative to
> "testsuite" (since it is #2 behind "make test" which we can't use).
> The most preferable option would be "test" but it's not happening
> without a complete rewrite of abuild, which I don't see happening just
> to support this...
I still fail to understand why "tests" isn't a viable, more fitting
alternative (after all, most of the time there will be more than one test).
Received on Tue Jan 31 2017 - 12:08:58 UTC