On Sep 24, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Ben Webb wrote:
> Daniel Russel wrote: >> Sounds good. It would be nice to have tests run on experimental too. > > Well, the intention was to run the tests but not fail the build if the > tests fail. But if people don't look at the build logs, it doesn't > make > a lot of difference whether the tests are run or not... If someone is interested in making sure there code builds on other platforms they will look :-) If not, no great loss unless the more obscure platform test machines are overloaded...
>> >> Also what does you comment about not putting things in experimental >> and then moving them to other modules mean? What exactly should go in >> experimental? > > I mean a given feature (e.g. a restraint) should be expected to live > in > a single module for its entire lifetime. The exp module is for > scientifically experimental features, as opposed to the core module > which includes features of general utility (e.g. distance restraints). > New features are proposed on imp-dev before going in, at which point I > can determine whether they belong in core, exp, or a more specific > module. I think I am still confused, is the experimental for any restraints that deal with experimental data or for experimental restraints (i.e. ones whose functionality is not yet completely nailed down)? If it is the former, I misunderstood, but it should definitely have its tests run. If the latter, it seems quite reasonably to run tests on it, but not have the tests break the build. And it also seems reasonable to put things there first and then move them elsewhere when they are better defined and more stable.