[RFC] depend on testtools for testing?

[Francis J. Lacoste]

On October 29, 2009, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> > A matching version of testtools may be hard to obtain or install; it may
> > be home to new and exciting bugs, or we may not be able to get our bug
> > fixes into it.
> 
> This is probably a fair source of errors. Specifically any library that
> is evolving independently of bzrlib will end up with:
>   a) We must always have the latest version of X
>   b) We must have exactly version Y
>   c) We bundle version Z in our source tree (bzrlib.util.testtools?)
> 
> I don't feel that testtools is sufficiently 'stable' today that we won't
> run into the desire to go "fix" something, and then we start depending
> on that fixed version.
> 
> If we had nested-trees then I would probably say "great", "bzr co
> lp:bzr" also checks out "lp:testtools" and then you always have the
> latest of both and we ensure that the version in bzr is compatible with
> the version you got of testtools.
> 

buildout is a great tool to manage such dependencies automatically. Both 
Launchpad and Lanscape are now using it. It's great for development, but it 
won't solve the additional complexity in packaging. (bzr requires testtools < 
0.5, but the system .deb has 0.6 and you can't install both in parallel.)



-- 
Francis J. Lacoste
francis.lacoste at canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20091029/c647b4bb/attachment.pgp