Re: Autotools GSoC ideas

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Lattarini
<address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't know how the GSoC proposals are evaluated, but if reviewers tend
> to prefer more precise goals, extending the proposal in this way might
> not be a smart move.  Maybe something like the following would be better?
>
>  ``Interfacing with the Test Anything Protocol (TAP).  If possible, try
>   to write an implementation that will allow future extensions to
>   similar but more advanced advanced protocols (e.g., subunit, which
>   is similar to TAP but slightly more structured, capable of handling
>   binary attachments, and so on).''

You could - or you could just write to the most capable and let folk
insert a filter (e.g. tap2subunit, included in the subunit package) if
they are using a different protocol themselves.

There are a whole bunch of such protocols with varying capabilities
around - tap, subunit, junit's xml format, glib's xml format, at least
one json based format...

-Rob