Menu
▾
▴
nmock-two-dev — Discussion of development of NMock 2
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(17) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(21) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(8) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:59:32
|
I'm trying really really hard not to go anywhere near all that IP and ownership stuff. I'm hoping we can come to some kind of balance where a little attribution is acceptable to everyone. I am trying to get NMock 2.0out of the door, I am not trying to advertise TW. Open-source works when all participants are engaged and collaborating, which is what I'd like to achieve here. I hadn't even intended to put the logo on every page, we're getting all upset about one site mockup, let's chill. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:55:10
|
On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > That's a good point actually. The Java community is more open-source > friendly, but we're now working in the world of Microsoft and other > hard-nosed companies. If they've ripped us off before they'll do it > again. Maybe LGPL is a good compromise. It provides freedom to end > users without scaring the pants of companies too cheap to hire > lawyers. > If it's GPL in any way, shape or form, many companies will not touch it wit= h a ten foot barge pole, regardless of what the actual license content says. = I said "reputation for being non-business friendly" because it's not generall= y the reality, but the reputation is enough for companies to disallow any use of GPL, LGPL, etc. Is there a license that is stricter about people not ripping off the code but that is not GPL? Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Paul G. <pau...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:51:07
|
AFAIK, for as long as you were on the TW payroll they have ALL intellectual property rights associated with any work you do whether it be done on your own time and/or your own machine or not. They own said IP. Folks keep forgetting that. Therefore they have the right to have their name displayed anyway and anywhere they want if any contributions were made to the project by active ThoughtWorkers. This is ofcourse, only if they wanted to get snippy about it, but you shouldn't ignore it. So the fact that TW did not put up any cash for its implementation is not the issue. Paul On 15/02/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember > > happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a > > link up but not a dominating one. > > I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they > should be attributed on the team page. > > --Nat. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:47:35
|
On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > Could we use Creative Commons? > Do they have a license that's appropriate for software? I've used them before, but only for "creative" style works like my blog. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:47:24
|
There's an important distinction between TW-ers giving feedback and TW, the corporate entity, giving official support. The former happened, the latter didn't. If they are giving official support in Canada, then that should be attributed. --Nat On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > However, you can see why I'm not too keen on TW > > stamping great big logos all over the project. > > > > I'm sorry things didn't work out. It's only this morning that I've realis= ed > you folks are no longer TW employees and I understand a bit better where > you're coming from. > > It was not my intention to slap big logos all over the site - that was a > version of CSS/layout to see what people thought. I do think it's fair to > have *some* kind of attribution in there, because TW and TWers did suppor= t > you in your work on NMock (I understand that you feel under-supported) an= d > is trying to get this thing out there for the world. > > I'm going to put together a "team" page including a small TW logo and som= e > mention of the history of the NMock project(s). Maybe we can chat about > whether that page is appropriate and contains enough of the right peoples > names, etc. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:45:17
|
That's a good point actually. The Java community is more open-source friendly, but we're now working in the world of Microsoft and other hard-nosed companies. If they've ripped us off before they'll do it again. Maybe LGPL is a good compromise. It provides freedom to end users without scaring the pants of companies too cheap to hire lawyers. --Nat On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > I'm torn on this. There are a number of implementations who have just > taken our stuff and are flogging product on it without even being > polite enough to credit us. So now I'm more GPL than I used to be. > > Could we use Creative Commons? > > S. > > On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:34, Mike Mason wrote: > > There's currently no license attached to the NMock 2.0 codebase, as > > far as I can see. Nat, have I missed a license file or is it yet-to- > > be licensed? Did you have a license in mind for the code? (I would > > rather we avoided GPL or its variants because of their reputation > > for being non-business friendly). > > > > Cheers, > > Mike. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:43:17
|
On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember > happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a > link up but not a dominating one. I agree. If (and only if) TW has funded people to do this then they should be attributed on the team page. --Nat. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:43:14
|
On 2/15/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > However, you can see why I'm not too keen on TW > stamping great big logos all over the project. > I'm sorry things didn't work out. It's only this morning that I've realised you folks are no longer TW employees and I understand a bit better where you're coming from. It was not my intention to slap big logos all over the site - that was a version of CSS/layout to see what people thought. I do think it's fair to have *some* kind of attribution in there, because TW and TWers did support you in your work on NMock (I understand that you feel under-supported) and is trying to get this thing out there for the world. I'm going to put together a "team" page including a small TW logo and some mention of the history of the NMock project(s). Maybe we can chat about whether that page is appropriate and contains enough of the right peoples names, etc. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:41:59
|
I was planning to use the same as jMock -- it's a BSD style license.=20 http://www.jmock.org/license.html On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > There's currently no license attached to the NMock 2.0 codebase, as far a= s I > can see. Nat, have I missed a license file or is it yet-to-be licensed? D= id > you have a license in mind for the code? (I would rather we avoided GPL o= r > its variants because of their reputation for being non-business friendly)= . > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-15 16:40:26
|
I'm torn on this. There are a number of implementations who have just taken our stuff and are flogging product on it without even being polite enough to credit us. So now I'm more GPL than I used to be. Could we use Creative Commons? S. On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:34, Mike Mason wrote: > There's currently no license attached to the NMock 2.0 codebase, as > far as I can see. Nat, have I missed a license file or is it yet-to- > be licensed? Did you have a license in mind for the code? (I would > rather we avoided GPL or its variants because of their reputation > for being non-business friendly). > > Cheers, > Mike. |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-15 16:37:17
|
Manners, please. We did the vast bulk of the work on our own time, much of it before joining TW. If TW has actually provided people with time (which I don't remember happening in London) then that should be recognised, and we can put a link up but not a dominating one. S. On 15 Feb 2006, at 16:24, Paul Gale wrote: > Given Mike's explanation, then ThoughtWorks should absolutely be > credited. > Zero attribution Sounds like sour grapes from some EX-ThoughtWorkers. > > Paul > > On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: >> >> On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: >>> >>> It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the >>> ThoughtWorks >>> logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project >>> -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. >>> >> >> ThoughtWorks has provided 3 developers in Calgary for the better >> part of >> the last two weeks working on this stuff, especially documentation >> which >> tends to be light on most open-source projects. We intend to >> support pushing >> NMock 2.0 into a live, released state. The code was originally >> written by >> Nat, a ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved >> with NMock >> consistently during its lifetime. >> >> Sounds like this attribution question is important so let's tackle >> it head >> on. I'd *like* for there to be some attribution, even if it's only >> on an >> "about" page (regardless of the CSS style we use for the site). >> Nat, Steve, >> sounds like you want zero attribution. Is there some happy medium? >> Are there >> any other organizations that should get attribution? >> >> Also sounds like we should include the Maven-style "team" page, which >> should probably include all the existing NMock people and any >> extras for >> NMock 2.0. >> >> Cheers, >> Mike. >> |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:35:26
|
There's currently no license attached to the NMock 2.0 codebase, as far as = I can see. Nat, have I missed a license file or is it yet-to-be licensed? Did you have a license in mind for the code? (I would rather we avoided GPL or its variants because of their reputation for being non-business friendly). Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:28:14
|
On 2/15/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > The code was originally written by Nat, a > ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved with NMock > consistently during its lifetime. Thoughtworks, the corporate entity, didn't give me any support when I originally wrote it. I got useful feedback from Joe W but TW really gave me anti-support by dropping me into a .NET team as tech-lead with no time to learn anything about .NET. I started writing NMock2 to learn C# and the .NET platform so that I could do my day-job. The fact that I had to do this on my own time, after work when I had better things to be doing, did not make me very happy. There's more to it than just that but I'll shut up before it degrades into an embittered rant. However, you can see why I'm not too keen on TW stamping great big logos all over the project. --Nat. |
|
From: Paul G. <pau...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:24:52
|
Given Mike's explanation, then ThoughtWorks should absolutely be credited. Zero attribution Sounds like sour grapes from some EX-ThoughtWorkers. Paul On 15/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > > > It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks > > logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project > > -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. > > > > ThoughtWorks has provided 3 developers in Calgary for the better part of > the last two weeks working on this stuff, especially documentation which > tends to be light on most open-source projects. We intend to support push= ing > NMock 2.0 into a live, released state. The code was originally written by > Nat, a ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved with NMoc= k > consistently during its lifetime. > > Sounds like this attribution question is important so let's tackle it hea= d > on. I'd *like* for there to be some attribution, even if it's only on an > "about" page (regardless of the CSS style we use for the site). Nat, Stev= e, > sounds like you want zero attribution. Is there some happy medium? Are th= ere > any other organizations that should get attribution? > > Also sounds like we should include the Maven-style "team" page, which > should probably include all the existing NMock people and any extras for > NMock 2.0. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 16:12:30
|
On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks > logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project > -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. > ThoughtWorks has provided 3 developers in Calgary for the better part of th= e last two weeks working on this stuff, especially documentation which tends to be light on most open-source projects. We intend to support pushing NMoc= k 2.0 into a live, released state. The code was originally written by Nat, a ThoughtWorks employee. ThoughtWorkers have been involved with NMock consistently during its lifetime. Sounds like this attribution question is important so let's tackle it head on. I'd *like* for there to be some attribution, even if it's only on an "about" page (regardless of the CSS style we use for the site). Nat, Steve, sounds like you want zero attribution. Is there some happy medium? Are ther= e any other organizations that should get attribution? Also sounds like we should include the Maven-style "team" page, which shoul= d probably include all the existing NMock people and any extras for NMock 2.0= . Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 11:13:17
|
On 2/14/06, Gary Feldman <sf_...@ma...> wrote: > I suppose one person's lovely is another's liver. Anything with > brackets going four levels deep violates my sense of aesthetics, all > the more so when they're not all the same sort of brackets, and they're > all on one line. In what way do you think this better than the current > syntax? Mmmmmmm... liver.... Why do I think it's better? Because the description of the expectation is an actual call in C# syntax (or VB or whatever the host language is), and so will work well with ReSharper or maybe even with the refactoring tool in VS2005. --Nat. |
|
From: <thi...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:53:21
|
> > I've been using NMock 1 for ages, and I'm alright with it, but that's > probably because I originally used it in the office it was largely > written in. Definitely looking forward to giving NMock2 ago. I should > really just try it out in one of my open source projects... > Hi I've been using NMock also for a few months on various projects, and it actually really helped me out a couple of times on tricky stuff. But NMock2 looks great, I'll definitely try it as soon as I create the opportunity :) cheers Thibaut -- [blog] http://www.dotnetguru2.org/tbarrere |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:51:31
|
Yes. Thoughtworks didn't support any of the initial implementation.=20 I just happened to be working for them while developing it in my spare time. They basically have the same relationship with NMock as with jMock, so I'd follow the same style when it comes to logos, attribution, etc. (e.g. none). --Nat On 2/15/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > On 14 Feb 2006, at 22:56, Mike Mason wrote: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ > > better. > > > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the > > logo but I > > quite like the rest of the style: > > > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > > > > Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the > > tutorial. > > It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks > logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project > -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. > > S. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:41:40
|
On 2/14/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Thank you for your offers of content. Maybe we need an "advanced" section > where we can put that kind of stuff. If/when you're done, do go ahead and > blog it - if we're ready for that stuff we can cull it for the NMock webs= ite > too (with your permission). Feel free to adapt content on the jMock site. There are tutorials about writing custom constraints (now Matchers in NMock2), custom Stubs (now Actions), mocking threaded code, etc. etc. The Yoga for your Unit Tests tutorial is a good starting point. --Nat. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:40:10
|
Feel free to take what you need (scripts, CSS, etc) from the jMock site. We also made an nMock logo that matched the jMock one, if you want that -- co-branding etc. etc. --Nat. On 2/14/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/13/06, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote: > > > > > The only real complaint that I have is against the JavaScript links. I > like to open embedded links in another tab and then continue reading, but > with the JavaScript links the page has to load in the current tab. I thin= k > this is pretty limiting, and would move for the use of actual links. Is t= his > the Ajax stuff that you are referring to? > > Yeah it is, and judging by the feedback from everyone else it definitely = has > to go. I just wanted to be able to generate templated pages without using= an > actual templating system, but it looks like it's not as groovy as it ough= t > to be. I'll go back through Nat's comments on how they did the jMock site > and try and steal that. I'm quite happy with the layout and "clean" look > though, so will prolly stick with the current CSS. > > Thank you for your offers of content. Maybe we need an "advanced" section > where we can put that kind of stuff. If/when you're done, do go ahead and > blog it - if we're ready for that stuff we can cull it for the NMock webs= ite > too (with your permission). > > Cheers, > Mike. > > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:38:16
|
Mike Mason wrote: > I agree that we don't want to just poop out something half assed, but I > think what's there is not half assed or poopy. I think it's pretty good. > Release often and early, and all that. Yes, I agree. What's there currently is pretty nice. We should learn from our mistakes with jMock (too few releases). Get something out there and then improve it is the way to go. As long as we follow a strict version numbering convention (e.g. jMock's) to clearly communicate compatability I think we should be fine. --Nat |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 10:20:40
|
On 15/02/06, Owen Rogers <exo...@gm...> wrote: > foxy! nice work, pooner. Yikes - the project's gone all Canuck! :) Nice work on the plain-htmlifying. Mike |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-15 09:06:44
|
On 14 Feb 2006, at 22:56, Mike Mason wrote: > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ better. > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the > logo but I > quite like the rest of the style: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > > Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the > tutorial. It's a little bit cute for my taste. And what's with the ThoughtWorks logo being so large? What support are they providing to the project -- and just being employed by them doesn't count. S. |
|
From: Owen R. <exo...@gm...> - 2006-02-15 06:42:29
|
foxy! nice work, pooner. o. On 14/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > Joe Poon and I have taken the jMock templating script and used it for NMo= ck > (thanks Nat!). I've updated the output on my web site - it looks pretty m= uch > the same but is now using plain HTML for everything: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ > > Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo but= I > quite like the rest of the style: > > http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ > > Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the tutorial. > > Cheers, > Mike. > -- Owen Rogers | http://dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/exortech | CruiseControl.NET - http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-14 22:56:48
|
Joe Poon and I have taken the jMock templating script and used it for NMock (thanks Nat!). I've updated the output on my web site - it looks pretty muc= h the same but is now using plain HTML for everything: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/ Joe worked on another CSS skin for it last week. Not sure on the logo but I quite like the rest of the style: http://the.earth.li/~mgm/nmock2/pursuitofutopia/ Any comments much appreciated. We're gonna start working on the tutorial. Cheers, Mike. |
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
