Re: [Etester-devel] Re: E-Tester 2.1.2

[Gunnar G. <gu...@cs...>]

Hi All,

I agree that we fix the version for etester and provide the class 
download.  Perhaps this can be done from the etester.sourceforge.net 
page that already describes etester, its use, how to download and 
install.  Perhaps a paragraph on that page can have a link to the 
"current" 3311 download.   The alternative is for us to have a 
download on our page with a link to the instructions.

I have modified the etester slides with the link to 
estester.sourceforge.net after Dave showed me the page and indicated 
it is the root of etester info.

to_print is not needed if we read only the hml output.  If we want 
terminal output then to_print is needed.  At least that is how I 
understand estester at this time.

Cheers ... Gunnar


At 11:10 AM -0400 9/10/03, Vassilios Tzerpos wrote:
>   I have to agree with Gunnar here. Taking out to_string is a bad 
>idea. You don't change the interface on your clients. You just hope 
>to convince them of the superiority of the new interface, deprecate 
>the old, but you still let them use it :) Besides, to_string is 
>quite helpful when you get started with a test harness which happens 
>a lot for 3311.
>   On the other hand, I noticed that to_string was buggy for 2.1.0, 
>so maybe it's better it's out. If that's the case, please let us 
>know, and I'm sure we'll live without it for now. Eventually, I 
>would personally like to see it back.
>   Finally, even though the other changes for 2.1.2 were good, we 
>cannot keep changing the version that is available at sourceforge, 
>if we want students to download it from there. The last thing I want 
>to do is deal with complaints that students were using the wrong 
>etester version or something like that.
>   As a result, I would rather take a version such as 2.1.2, put it 
>on the course web page, and have students download it from there. As 
>much as software is a living thing, for code that is distributed to 
>students, I would prefer something "dead" :)
>   I think the plan should be the following: Dave lets us know 
>whether to_string can come back before the end of the week working 
>correctly. If  so, make that change, call it 2.1.3 and that's what 
>we'll give to the students. If not, we'll go with 2.1.2.
>   How does it sound?
>   Bil