separate trial release (was Re: [Twisted-Python] Twisted Jabber mailinglist)

Jean-Paul Calderone exarkun at
Tue Oct 25 00:03:30 EDT 2005

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:19:40 +1100, Jonathan Lange <jml at> wrote:
>On 24/10/05, Jonathan Lange <jml at> wrote:
>> On 24/10/05, glyph at <glyph at> wrote:
>> > The main message here is that each Twisted subproject should be a coherent whole that performs an actual function.  If .xish grew a tool for monitoring or transforming XML streams that would actually be useful to a reasonable-sized audience (i.e. not just for the author of the tool to test the library and not just so it can be split out ^_^), then it might be a good candidate for being split out into its own project again.
>> >
>> You know, by these standards, Trial is a good candidate for being
>> split out into its own project.
>> Now, sceptics might say, "ahh, but does not core depend on Trial?".
>> To which I would say, "No it doesn't".
>Seriously, why don't we release Trial as a separate project?

Passing unit tests would be a good start towards that ;)

Seriously: leaving twisted.protocols.loopback aside, I still think Core depends on Trial because Trial is how you can *tell* if Core is working: you run its tests.

So Core depends on Trial, and Trial depends on core.  If you must have both installed for either to work, is there really a benefit to packaging them separately?  If you can suggest some other way to demonstrate that a Core install works, maybe you can convince me releasing trial separately has a purpose.


More information about the Twisted-Python mailing list