cunit integration, cddl: was Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Gerrit reviews and the rate of acceptance

[Russ Allbery]

"Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@linuxbox.com> writes:
> ----- "Simon Wilkinson" <simonxwilkinson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Fine. In which case the way to handle this would be to have a
>> discussion, on openafs-devel, about either adding a second unit test
>> framework, or moving over from TAP to CUnit. Making a single trivial
>> patchset dependent on a significant change in developer tools is not a
>> good way to get that patchset into the upstream tree.

> To the best of my recollection, Russ' position was, this isn't a blocker
> for him, but at some point there would be a tap integration with CUnit.
> I'm happy to work on that.

My position is that I'm not willing to be a blocker in any way of any work
on the test suite.  I personally would not use CUnit -- I think TAP
provides more granularity and is easier to use -- but I'm not working on
the test suite at all at the moment.  People who are not doing work don't
get to block people who are doing work.

I do think that there's a long-term maintenance burden of having tests
written in two different frameworks.  I would not want to have two
different test harnesses or libraries in use, and for one of my own
projects I would only accept CUnit in combination with rewriting all of
the existing tests to use it instead of TAP as well.  But at this point in
the development of OpenAFS, I think having any tests at all is possibly
more important than worrying too much about what framework they're using.

> Unfortunately, licensing is just a sticky area, and the issues need to
> be taken case by case.

The easiest way to avoid the sticky issue is to simply refuse to take any
code that isn't covered by one of a *very* small number of approved
licenses already in use in the project.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>