Add a CONTRIBUTING.md file #145
Conversation
|
|
||
| At the time of writing we have 94% test coverage according to our coveralls.io | ||
| continuous integration. That number should generally stay the same or go up ;) | ||
| This is a bit subjective, because -.001% is just noise and doesn't matter. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you have kcov installed under linux, then you can generate the coverage results using ./coverage in the root of the repository, and view them at target/kcov/index.html. Otherwise you can create a pull request and view the coverage results on coveralls.io.
|
|
||
| We aim to be the fastest DWARF library. Period. | ||
|
|
||
| Please provide before and after benchmark results with your pull requests. You |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But only needed if the PR affects performance?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally, we would have a CI bot to run before and after benches for us. That would be super sweet.
I don't think it hurts to encourage more benching than is strictly necessary, especially for newcomers before they've gotten a feel for how we do things here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, should we link to your dwarf-bench here? Is that something you'd like to continue building in the future? I'd like to do some more in depth cross-library benchmarking sometime (handwaves) in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dwarf-bench isn't useful to link to yet. It's hard to use and the results probably aren't that meaningful yet. For cross-library comparisons, I think it's going to be more useful to benchmark things that solve a well-defined problem with a verifiable result, so that we know if we're comparing the same thing. So current status is that it was useful to get ballpark figures, but it's going to need a rethink to get anything more.
r? @philipc
Anything I'm missing here that you'd like to see added?