2016-01-29 17:23:24 -05:00
|
|
|
Things I want
|
|
|
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Molly guard
|
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
The Molly-guard should be more accepting so that people don't have to use it
|
|
|
|
|
all the time and thus get used to using it. For example, you shouldn't need to
|
|
|
|
|
pass -f in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/357
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test speed
|
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
Make tests run faster.
|
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/bike-barn/hermit/issues/62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, easier thing is probably to run tests in parallel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, also easier thing is to tell people to save things to RAM rather than
|
|
|
|
|
disk whenever they can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third, harder thing is to put the test suite in RAM automatically. Maybe the
|
|
|
|
|
whole test directory, which includes fixtures, gets copied to a tmpfs if one
|
|
|
|
|
exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm or maybe there's a compromise: Tell people to mount /tmp as a tmpfs so
|
|
|
|
|
that temp files are fast. Maybe allow people to set some other directory as
|
|
|
|
|
the temporary file place, in case they want a different tmpfs location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
I want long options. For example, there's presently -f and -e.
|
|
|
|
|
I want to make them -f|--force and -e|--exit.
|
2016-01-29 17:27:55 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environment variables
|
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
Do something to make it easier to debug environment variables, because that is
|
|
|
|
|
often confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/719
|
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/creationix/nvm/issues/589
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documenting that people should run "env" when their tests fail might be good
|
|
|
|
|
enough.
|
2016-01-29 18:15:50 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Licensing and copyright
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
* Reference all owners and years in the Copyright file
|
|
|
|
|
* Consider copyleft licenses
|
|
|
|
|
* Add license notices to other files if necessary
|
2016-01-29 19:39:43 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Packaging
|
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
Package for package managers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* I want NixOS, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
* Debian is probably the big one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other interesting package managers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Update the npm package
|
|
|
|
|
* Homebrew (for Mac)
|
2016-01-29 19:42:07 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windows
|
|
|
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
|
Try running Urchin in Windows somehow. I guess CygWin.
|
2016-01-31 11:36:03 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider copyleft licenses
|
|
|
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
|
ScraperWiki owns the original version of Urchin (Thomas Levine did the early
|
|
|
|
|
work as part of his work for ScraperWiki.) and originally licensed it under an
|
|
|
|
|
MIT-style license. Other people made changes after this original ScraperWiki
|
|
|
|
|
version. As of January 2016, they are just Thomas Levine (when he wasn't
|
|
|
|
|
working for ScraperWiki) and Michael Klement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original license was MIT just because that's what ScraperWiki put on
|
|
|
|
|
everything. Should we change the license?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The MIT-style license grants pretty much all rights. It says that you need
|
|
|
|
|
to attribute when you redistribute source code, but you don't
|
|
|
|
|
necessarily have to redistribute source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A copyleft license adds the restriction that modified versions of the
|
|
|
|
|
code need to be licensed under the same license. GNU licenses in
|
|
|
|
|
particular require that source code be released if non-source versions are
|
|
|
|
|
released, and the different GNU licenses differ in what how the
|
|
|
|
|
non-source version is defined. (The original, GPL, discusses compiled
|
|
|
|
|
binaries.) Copyleft doesn't mean anything specific for commercial use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIT-licensed code can be modified and then licensed as GPL, because MIT
|
|
|
|
|
license allows that, but GPL code can't be modified as MIT, because MIT
|
|
|
|
|
doesn't allow that. And if we get all of the authors to agree on it, we
|
|
|
|
|
can always add whatever crazy license we want, regardless of what we
|
|
|
|
|
have already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The distinction between MIT-style and GNU-something might matter quite little
|
|
|
|
|
in the case of Urchin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Urchin is written in an interpreted language (shell), so it might be
|
|
|
|
|
hard to distribute usefully without providing the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
2. Urchin just runs tests; it doesn't get compiled with the rest of the
|
|
|
|
|
code (also because it's in shell). Thus, I think a GPL license on
|
|
|
|
|
Urchin wouldn't infect the code being tested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is as far as I have gotten with contemplating license changes. For now
|
|
|
|
|
we're sticking with the original MIT-style license, but it's easy to change
|
|
|
|
|
licenses later.
|
