Re: Should old (5.3) tests pass in new GC if running in non-generational mode

[Paige DePol <lual@...>]

Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:

>> I was wondering if the tests could be amended in a way that makes the
>> differences obvious - i.e. have the tests bracketed by version.
> 
> Sure they can, you only have to find someone to do it :-) I have little
> interest in that. The test suite is not a "product", it is something
> for our internal use. It went public because a lot of people asked,
> but we do not intend to give support for it (neither to explain this
> again and again). If it starts to generate too much noise, it would
> be simpler (i.e., less work for us) to make it private again.

PLEASE, do not make the test suite private again. I find it an
invaluable resource and would miss it greatly if it disappeared! 


> BTW, the same is true about the git repository. The main reason it
> was not public was that we do not want to discuss every small change
> we make, all the time. When it is time to discuss, we release a work
> version. It went public because a lot of people asked, but we do not
> intend to give support for it (neither to explain this again and again).
> Anyone wanting to use the git versions (and the test suites), do it at
> their own risk.

I think when source code is made available online sometimes people expect
the developers to be available to answer any and all questions on demand.
Clarifying the position of the Lua team clearly, as you have done here,
could help towards not having to answer the same questions about either
GitHub or the Test Suite.


For example, GitHub only says the following that I can find, and there is
no README file available with any extra info:

"The Lua repo, as seen by the Lua team. Mirrored irregularly."


The page for the Test Suite[1] really only says the following in regards to
any sorts of restrictions:

"They are not intended for general use."
 

As neither of these resources really give any indication that they should
not be discussed on this list please consider adding warnings, such as
you've stated in your previous post, indicating that neither resource are
supported projects and are to be used on an "as-is" basis.

I would also suggest stating that the contents of the GitHub repository are
provided as a courtesy but the code changes are not to be discussed until a
release candidate version is available.

Personally, I would rather see these warnings be added where needed rather
than see either resource be removed.

~Paige

[1] http://www.lua.org/tests/