David James <james82@gmail.com> writes:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > I have to say (and have said in a few private email already today)
> > that I'm quite confused by the point of this whole effort.
> >
> > If the goal is to make the Python bindings testable, I think it's
> > overkill. The bindings are very thin; smaller test scripts would work
> > just fine. I mean, all you really need to test is that data can get
> > from Python to C and back again -- 98% of the work a Python bindings
> > cmdline client would do is down in the C libraries, which are already
> > well-covered by our test framework.
> Would you prefer if I took the more direct approach and just built
> thorough tests for the Python bindings? I'm not married to the idea of
> creating a command-line client in Python. :) In fact, it might make my
> life easier to take the direct approach. What do you think?
I would very much prefer such a thing. I've started down the road
myself several times, but kept getting hung up on our build system.
I'd like it very much if 'make swig-py' would create ready-to-install
/ ready-to-test modules linked against the C libraries still in the
build tree. Upon that foundation could 'make swig-py-check' be built.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 29 20:20:04 2005