On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:07:59 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:44:29 -0700, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> Right. I'd just like to make sure the approach I've taken (particularly
> patch 1 in the set as it touches the lib) is acceptable before spending
> time on testing and documentation etc. Indeed patches 1 and 2 changed
> fundamentally between v1 and v2 after some chats on IRC. If the comments
> now are favourable, I'll write the tests and documentation. (Though I
> guess I have to admit the tests would've been beneficial to me already
> now...)

I would say that since this is functionality that we do eventually want,
a known_broken test suite that tests for the functionality we want to
see would be very useful right from the start, even before any patches
to supply the functionality are made.  With the tests in hand we can
iterate over exactly what we want the ui to provide, and then worry
about the specific implementation.

The documentation can come later with the actual feature patches.

jamie.