From: Tim Pease <tim.pease@...>
Date: 2007-02-01T06:48:09+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] tinderbox 1.0.0 Released

On 1/31/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 03:10, Bil Kleb wrote:
> > Eric Hodel wrote:
> >> http://seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox
> >> Tinderbox tests projects and tries to make them break by running
> >> them on as
> >> many different platforms as possible.
> >
> > Five things:
> >
> >  1) Thank you; A most excellent contribution!
>
> Its the most depressing Ruby project I've ever written.

OK, I'm curious about why this was so depressing.  Care to explain?

Frankly, I think it is wonderful, and I'm incredibly grateful for its
existence.  The only depressing thing is how little green there is in
the overall pie chart view :(

>
> >  2) A pie chart!?  Tufte would be sad.
>
> The pie chart makes me sad too, but for different reasons.
>
> >  3) How are projects selected to be tested?  I.e., do I submit mine,
> >     are they automatically added?  (I'm too dense to find this info
> >     on http://firebrigade.seattlerb.org or http://
> > seattlerb.rubyforge.org/tinderbox/.)
>
> If its in the gem index, tinderbox tries to test it.
>
> >  4) What's with the "000 act aed asl ben" pagination headers/footers
> >     for the project listings?
>
> Encyclopedic pagination, so you know roughly where you're jumping
> too.  (But search is faster, and it kinda breaks down when you get to
> the 'ruby*' projects.)
>
> >  5) Probably been reported before and not related
> >     to Tinderbox, but why doesn't Rubygems understand
> >     repeated dependencies?
>
> The Install is set for an overhaul in RubyGems 0.9.2.  It takes a
> recursive approach to installing dependencies, so may have these
> kinds of issues.
>

I now understand why you and Ryan were so adamant about having Hoe
included as a dependency in people's gems.  Makes sense from the
perspective of firebrigade and tinderbox.

Blessings,
TwP