[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Problem with gnustep-base-1.6.0 Testing Output
From: |
Alexander Perez |
Subject: |
Re: Problem with gnustep-base-1.6.0 Testing Output |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:26:51 -0700 (PDT) |
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Alexander Malmberg wrote:
> Chris Beaham wrote:
> [snip]
> > I find this situation quite frustrating to be honest. Everyone is
> > currently discussing "Re: Why is GNUstep less successful than GTK and
> > Qt??", but how is someone new to GNUstep every going to even get
> > anywhere/started when the actual examples/tests are flawed and not
> > documented?
>
> Given that the stuff in Testing/ is obsolete and/or broken, and that
> this is confusing users, I suggest that we remove Testing/ completely
> from -base (possibly adding them in dev-apps/test/obsolete-tests/ or
> something instead).
I second this opinion. It confuses users, makes people think gnustep is
b0rken, and pushes people away as a result. Bad.
>
> > IMHO the basics should be exact, stable, and documented
> > before the more intellectual discussions can be started. I'm a
> > believer and don't need any convincing, however I'm sure that a lot of
> > people would have given up long before digging into the code itself,
> > even if it is very short and readable.
> >
> > I have attached a suggest fix to diningPhilosophers.m that my colleague
> > did; it adds another lock around the locking of the forks. There may
> > be a better way to implement this, but atleast this gets it running.
>
> IIRC, the by-the-book solution to the dining philosophers problem is to
> have one (and only one) of the "philosophers" grab the forks in the
> opposite order (in this case first right, then left).
> Alexander Malmberg