On 5 Mar 2013, at 00:23, Robert Collins firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 5 March 2013 13:21, Michael Foord email@example.com wrote:
We can certainly talk about it - although as Guido says, something specific may be easier to have a useful discussion about.
Reading through your blog articles it seemed like a whole lot of subunit context was required to understand the specific proposal you're making for the TestResult. It also *seems* like you're redesigning the TestResult for a single use case (distributed testing) with an api that looks quite "odd" for anything that isn't that use case. I'd rather see how we can make the TestResult play *better* with those requirements. That discussion probably belongs in another thread - or at the summit.
Right - all I wanted was to flag that you and I and any other interested parties should discuss this at the summit :).
I've added a testing topic to the agenda. At the very least you could outline your streaming test result proposal, or kick off a meta discussion. We'll probably time limit the discussion so some specific focus will make it more productive - or maybe you can get a feel for how open to major changes in this area other python devs are.
-- Robert Collins firstname.lastname@example.org Distinguished Technologist HP Cloud Services
May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html