On 2013-05-22, at 22:11, Denis Kudriashov <
dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/5/22 Camillo Bruni <
camillobruni@gmail.com>
>
>>
>> On 2013-05-22, at 21:04, Tudor Girba <
tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On May 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Igor Stasenko <
siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22 May 2013 10:38, St�phane Ducasse <
stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
>> wrote:
>>>>> I would use
>>>>>
>>>>> TextModelCore
>>>>> TextModelExtensions
>>>>>
>>>>> TextModelCore-Tests
>>>>>
>>>>> No extra dash in the middle.
>>>>
>>>> nooooo :)
>>>>
>>>> But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good.
>>>> For package:
>>>>
>>>> Package-Name-Tick-Tack
>>>>
>>>> tests should be in:
>>>>
>>>> Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests
>>>>
>>>> This convention used everywhere in pharo.
>>>
>>> Please do not do that :).
>>>
>>> If you do that, publishing Package-Name-Tick-Tack will publish the code
>> from Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests, too :). Why? Because we have a lovely
>> implicit one-to-many mapping.
>>>
>>> So, the pattern I know of is to put the Tests as a discriminator before
>> the variable part of your code. So, something like:
>>> - BaseName-Core
>>> - BaseName-Tests-Core
>>>
>>> But, the rule I apply more recently for code is to use - only for
>> categories, and camel case for the Monticello packages. Like this we also
>> document what is the unit of publishing, thus when you look into the code
>> browser we also know what is mapped on a Monticello package.
>>
>> I would love to change that rule. I think Tests have the same value as the
>> code itself.
>> The only reason to not load the code is the load time for the
>> configuration. Which is
>> basically is unimportant if you have a CI server preparing images for you.
>>
>> I can only speak for smaller projects, but I really do not sea a reason to
>> not load tests...
>>
>
> Because tests not needed to run your application.