<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Karel Piwko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kpiwko@redhat.com" target="_blank">kpiwko@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I was rather thinking about having a location that QE can control better.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If it is a matter of having "commit rights", I guess that should be easy to fix,</div>
<div>since you guys are already "contributing" a lot to the AeroGear project</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
But if using Java based DSL for tests will result in faster inclusion of PRs in<br>
master, you've found a good argument to do so, abstractj.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:16:11 -0300<br>
Bruno Oliveira <<a href="mailto:bruno@abstractj.org">bruno@abstractj.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I think it can be assigned and discussed with people familiar about<br>
> Groovy. Maybe get in touch with whom is familiar with it? This thread<br>
> might work as a hint<br>
> <a href="http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-To-Groovy-or-not-to-Groovy-in-integration-tests-td4030.html" target="_blank">http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-To-Groovy-or-not-to-Groovy-in-integration-tests-td4030.html</a><br>
><br>
> Karel Piwko wrote:<br>
> > Heya,<br>
> ><br>
> > while developing tests, we often fix something in one PR while we hit the<br>
> > same problem while different PR is developed. I'm not sure whether it's<br>
> > temporary situation or not, but right now we need a faster occurrence of<br>
> > PRs in master.<br>
> ><br>
> > That said, I really like "reviewers required" model used in Aerogear. So I<br>
> > was thinking of making a "mirror" of aerogear master (either branch or<br>
> > separate repository), where I could do the PR review, merge and later PR<br>
> > the master for review in bigger chunks. I'd like to avoid separating code<br>
> > and itests if possible, as this makes writing white tests a pita.<br>
> ><br>
> > How does it sound to you? Any comments/suggestions welcomed.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> ><br>
> > Karel<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Matthias Wessendorf <br><br>blog: <a href="http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/</a><br>
sessions: <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf</a><br>twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mwessendorf</a>
</div></div>