On 12/16/11 5:08 AM, Yannick Spill wrote: > I agree with Daniel that we should try to be cleaner and not commit > things that break the whole compile process.
Of course - I don't think anybody is arguing that we should break things all the time. ;) This is one reason why tests are useful - you can see pretty quickly if you (or somebody else) has broken something. (On the other hand, if you have a bunch of tests that don't work, it's that much harder to see, because the difference between "0 failures" and "1 failure" is obvious, but that between "500 failures" and "501 failures" is not. The IMP.isd tests are a good example here ;)
> Why don't we set a date in a more or less > short term, and decide that by then, every module should be working > without bugs, and have a decent documentation and some examples.
I agree... but then again, that's exactly how we've done releases before (well, except for the "without bugs" bit - that's pretty much impossible - the best you can hope for is to fix most of them). Once multifit is sorted out (the biggest hurdle right now) there's no reason why we can't do something like that.
Ben