[Cuis] Did we drop PNG support?

[Juan Vuletich]

On 12/20/2013 3:34 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
> On 20 December 2013 18:15, Juan Vuletich<juan at jvuletich.org>  wrote:
>> On 12/20/2013 1:16 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>> On every commit, CI runs your entire test suite. When things fail, you
>>> immediately know which commit broke the test, which gives you much
>>> less code (hopefully) to analyse, to find the breakage. CI is all
>>> about closing the feedback loop.
>>>
>>> Further, in GitHub's case, you can use Travis CI to handle the CI
>>> part. Because the test suite runs against every commit, a pull request
>>> will be validated (or not), and Travis CI can update the pull
>>> request's commit status. This gives you, the reviewer of the pull
>>> request, a green/red light, telling you that the PR doesn't break
>>> anything.
>>>
>>> (For the seriously pedantic, the thing you _really_ want is to merge
>>> the PR into the master and run the test suite on that. _That_ green
>>> light should inform the commit status of the PR. Alas, no one actually
>>> does that.)
>>>
>>> frank
>>
>> But all this assumes that:
>> a) Tests will catch every possible bug
>> b) Immediately after a test starts failing, someone will review the code
> No? Well, I don't assume that. The point is that when someone issues a
> pull request against your codebase, _something/one_ needs to run the
> tests. Why would you want to _have_ to do that manually, when a
> machine can do it for you?

Because I do it at the same time I carefully review the code myself. 
Then I can accept it or not considering my review and the tests.

> Tests should catch every _found_ bug. As in: if you find a bug, you
> write a test that demonstrates the bug. Then you fix the bug.
>
> If I cared about catching _every possible_ bug, I'd program in Coq or ATS.

Yes. But the stuff that constantly breaks is stuff that was never the 
subject of a bug, and has no tests.

>> And people starts being less careful about quality, believing that the CI
>> server can compensate for it.
> I would far rather have tests, CI, code coverage tools than not :)
> _My_ experience clearly doesn't match with yours.
>
>> (Do I need to say names?)
> If you mean _me_, you're mistaken. But tests that are not run might as
> well not exist.

Apologies, I didn't mean that, and I didn't mean to be rude. Everything 
I said (failed assumptions, lower quality, no good code review, broken 
stuff that was never a bug, etc) applies to Pharo. Or at least that's 
what I see in the Pharo mail list and what I heard from former Pharo users.

> frank
>

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich