- From: Mary Brady <mbrady@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:51:00 -0700
- To: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
I would prefer this decision to be based on technical reasons rather than the NIST environment. We can handle either -- it wasn't until now that we had a reason to figure out why filenames were converted to lowercase. It seems that SAMBA, which we use extensively defaults to this -- we have since fixed it on our end, so the NIST environment should have no bearing on this ... --Mary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com> To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:59 PM Subject: RE: SURVEY: Test case naming / Now VOTE > > From: Joseph Kesselman [mailto:keshlam@us.ibm.com] > > Restatement: It could be dangerous to _rely_ on > > mixed case _file_ names. > > If we're willing to accept that the test name may > > not be case-identical to the filename, and can design > > the tools to cope(*) with that... > > > I was thinking of the case where the tests were in the CVS repository with MixedCaseNames and were coerced to lowercase within NIST resulting in intended modifications never committed or tests > differing only by capitalization got into the repository. > > Having the filenames and the case names out of synch even by case would complicate the build since the Ant <style> task would create .java files with the same capitalization as the test and if the > /test/@name was not consistent the javac step would fail. > > If the NIST infrastructure is prone to force file names to lower case, it just seems more expedient to preempt it. I prefer not to cope, but we won't get into that. > > After the little " " directory debacle and previous capitalization nightmares with CVS, I'm just a little paranoid. > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 09:04:56 UTC