Aleksander
the way I read your mail, you seem to be saying that I'm narrow minded, or
irresponsible, or incompetent, or having a bad attitude, or all of the above.
I'm sorry that something insulted you! This was never the intention.
Please replace "think a second about the broader picture" with "look for a second from different angle". This still leaves the question what the future of collective work can be if people start adding "vetoes" around? This is serious question which I insist on being discussed as IMHO this
I feel insulted.
P.S. No apologies needed for me for "or are these words you put into the mouths of others" aka fabricating things or shortly calling me a liar. Despite the fact that I read it this way - operating with the idea that we are all driven by the best interest of the project prevented me from taking it that way.
If you want to continue communicating with me, I need an apology.
Stephan
On 02.06.20 16:56, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 7:50 PM <stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for answers here and others.
>
> I feel we can agree that the JUnit3 -> 4 conversion is different from other
> mass changes:
>
> * This change is done with close consideration of each individual case
> rather than mechanically applying some scheme over unseen amounts of code.
> * I see a tangible benefit (during development / for reporting etc.), with
> just few comments:
> - In JDT I never saw anything nearly as bad as what Alex linked (from
> team.cvs)
> - Once a new contributor realizes that he has issues with a new test
> method not being picked up, this should be the kind of question that should
> get a helpful hint from others in very short time. For simple questions like
> this feel free to ping even in short intervals.
> - This JUnit migration causes significant follow-up work in Object
> Teams, but I was happy to get helpful explanations from Carsten and thus I
> did not complain about this.
> * Test code is just a tiny little bit less critical than main code. This
> concerns cleanliness of the git history as well as bugs introduced by mass
> changes (= only indirectly affecting users, while still affecting adopters).
>
> I think in JDT/UI this particular activity is still ongoing, and I don't
> object to its completion (I have no idea about the percentage completed?). I
> hope other committers can agree, too?
>
> For compiler tests, however, I would veto any such change. I'm a bit less
> decided about other tests in JDT/Core or JDT/Debug, but I feel terminating
> this activity when JDT/UI is done is a fair compromise, OK?
>
>
> I tried to not reply here but just think a second about the broader picture -
> our releng includes JUnit 3/4 and soon 5 tests . There is code launching tests
> in different way, there is other code aggregating test results and etc. - this
> all comes at a price and this price is paid by people working so some bits end
> up released. So SWT tests are moving to JUnit 5 (I do care my interns to be able
> to work on it right from school). And I *veto* the work for supporting 3
> different test technologies/results in platform.releng. Or I decide that next
> Tycho won't support JUnit3 tests.
> Where would that put the project? I really suggest people to reconsider their
> attitude as nothing lives in vacuum and we are all interdependent. Thus saying
> "I would veto any such change" is a recipe for disaster.
>
> Regarding save actions, I second what Jonah said. Actually I think it was a
> bug to enable any save actions that are not in sync with the existing code.
>
>
> I hope with this we can tick off two items from the list as being not quite
> as controversial as some may have felt.
> Stephan
>
>
> Am 2020-05-28 15:52, schrieb Pyves .:
>
>> I've contributed a few patches to JDT Core and UI in the past couple of
>> years, so I'm guessing I fit in the "new contributors" category and may be
>> able to provide some insight.
>> My first contribution was fixing bug 424214 and I faced two problems
>> related to this discussion:
>> * I struggled to write new unit tests. At the time, I had never used JUnit
>> 3 (which is understandable given that JUnit 4 was released early 2006). I
>> was probably trying to write a test method with a different naming
>> convention and it wasn't being picked up by the framework - no longer sure
>> at this point. And as JUnit 3 was not a thing I had used, I didn't even
>> realise it was JUnit 3 (in my mind it was some bespoke Eclipse test
>> utility running) and consequently I couldn't easily look up any
>> documentation to solve my problems. In the end, I ended up putting the
>> tests in an existing file and copy-pasted as much possible, not really
>> understanding how things fitted together. For anyone who has started
>> writing Java in the past decade or so, these mass migrations to JUnit 4,
>> even though they touch a lot of files and introduce commit noise, are useful.
>> * I struggled to get the contribution under 1000 lines to avoid the CQ.
>> The files I changed had not been cleaned up nor touched in years,
>> therefore some of the automatic save actions had introduced additional
>> diffs, for example import ordering. With Till Brichy's help I then had to
>> revert some of these automatic changes, just for the sake of getting under
>> the 1000 line limit in time for the M3 deadline. Note that this was my
>> very first usage of Gerrit, so reverting lines and pushing new patch sets
>> was not as straightforward for me as it would be now. "Fighting" against
>> save actions would not have been needed had the files been cleaned up
>> prior to my contribution.
>> Admittedly, these are only two small inconveniences which some of you may
>> even consider as anecdotal, but hopefully they do illustrate cases where
>> mass cleanups can help newcomers. :)
>> Best regards,
>> Pierre-Yves
>>
>> Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 15:08, Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:07 PM Stephan Herrmann
>> <stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> On 28.05.20 13:20, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:55 PM S A
>> <simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > <mailto:simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:simeon.danailov.andreev@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > I can't make a comment on attracting other contributors in JDT.
>> >
>> >
>> > That I can comment :).
>>
>> Are you speaking from your own experience of working on JDT code
>> (as a new
>> contributor), or are these words you put into the mouths of
>> others? I'd
>> appreciate if they speak for themselves.
>>
>> I speak as the tech lead for Jeff and Roland and discussions on a
>> weekly basis what/how/when/why to do so we can share the burden in JDT
>> with others. Being the one that have pushed for people to work on JDT
>> and the one that has followed up most of the late additions to the
>> team and specifically organizing the team work so JDT team and
>> community can grow - yes I do speak from my own experience and would
>> dare to even say that have a broader view of the project not worse
>> than many committers.
>> I haven't worked on JDT code itself a lot (releng fixes after
>> incomplete fixes in JDT and -Werror addition) but I would dare to say
>> that non-trivial part of the work in the last few releases has been
>> requested by/approved by/checked by/etc. by me personally incl.
>> freeing time for people to work on JDT and further .
>>
>>
>> I'm willing to learn from our new contributors. It's among the
>> committers that
>> we have to find a mode of operation that facilitates collaboration
>> and avoids
>> stepping on each others' toes. It seems this mode has not yet been
>> found.
>>
>> > P.S. Only whoever hasn't looked at unreadable JUnit3 test
>> suites results [...]
>>
>> I'm looking at such results [1] all the time and I see no problem.
>> Do you care
>> to be more specific?
>>
>> https://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops4/R-4.15-202003050155/testresults/html/org.eclipse.team.tests.cvs.core_ep415I-unit-win32-java8_win32.win32.x86_64_8.0.html
>> - go even figure which test triggered the failing setup. You want see
>> it in later builds cause these specific tests have been disabled and
>> other such has been updated to JUnit4 - doing it regularly when my
>> daily look at test results spots such thing.
>>
>>
>> Stephan
>>
>> [1]
>> https://ci.eclipse.org/jdt/job/eclipse.jdt.core-Gerrit/lastStableBuild/testReport/
>> _______________________________________________
>> jdt-dev mailing list
>> jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexander Kurtakov
>> Red Hat Eclipse Team
>> _______________________________________________
>> jdt-dev mailing list
>> jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jdt-dev mailing list
>> jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jdt-dev mailing list
> jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander Kurtakov
> Red Hat Eclipse Team
>
> _______________________________________________
> jdt-dev mailing list
> jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
>
_______________________________________________
jdt-dev mailing list
jdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jdt-dev
