| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I still think we're re-inventing the wheel. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Oh I've thought so all along, but you seemed very determined to do it. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Well, I wouldn't call it a complete waste. I just think there is a |
| 8 |
point of diminishing returns. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I posted to the list asking what was holding us up. After some IRC |
| 11 |
discussion it came up that validation was perceived as being an issue, |
| 12 |
and one which could be rate-limiting. If as a result of my work |
| 13 |
people think that validation isn't a big deal, then that's an |
| 14 |
accomplishment. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Testing is by its nature self-defeating - if you do a perfect job the |
| 17 |
tests will all pass, but chances are that a team that skips testing |
| 18 |
will not be perfect. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'll try to make a few more incremental steps until we're a bit |
| 21 |
closer. Then we can do some manual comparisons. If the header issue |
| 22 |
is fixed then that is a bunch of work that will go away. (The paths |
| 23 |
in the header were the only difference I saw, but that was based on |
| 24 |
some manual spot checks. If that is fixed and there are just a few |
| 25 |
one-off situations where there isn't a match then the hash comparison |
| 26 |
should show them.) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives