Hi Akim, thanks for the feedback!
* Akim Demaille wrote on Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:05:47PM CEST: > >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > These four patches implement parallel execution of TESTS in Automake, > > adapted from the check.mk file Akim Demaille posted earlier. > > For the records, I attached the version I'm currently using. Thanks. FWIW, it still has some of the portability issues that I mentioned. > > 6) lazy test completion (do not rerun already-run tests), > > This one must be optional, but it provides huge savings when it > applies. Agreed on both accounts. It is optional in the version I have. > > - (5), (6), (8) are provided already by the check.mk code, except that > > (8) didn't work. > > Actually I never meant to have hard error stop the whole test suite. > The point of hard-errors as they were defined in check.mk was to make > them *non* ignorable. For instance our test suite raises a hard-error > if the program make a segmentation fault, which we never want to > tolerate. I don't understand. What is the difference to a normail FAIL then, i.e., to the process exiting with 1? > > - output `PASS: foo.test' not `PASS: foo.log' > > This was actually a feature :) We use an Emacs mode that opens the > (log) file when we click on it. But it's not the log file that fails. I found this very non-intuitive. I might be talked into a compromise, though; for example like this: FAIL: sub/foo.test (see sub/foo.log) WDYT? > > - is everybody ok with the following authorship for patch 1/4? > > 2008-10-XX Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Benoit Sigoure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > (as git allows only one author, I will put the first name in --author) > > Thanks :) I think that some of the parts about tput were from Bob > Proulx, but I'm not sure. I ripped out all the tput parts, because in my tests they were far less portable than escape sequences. If there are other things from Bob then I'll happily add him. > > - how should I best acknowledge The Vaucanson Group? Something like > > this in lib/am/check.am ok? > > > ## This code is adapted from check.mk which came from: > > ## > > ## Vaucanson, a generic library for finite state machines. > > ## Copyright (C) 2006, 2007 The Vaucanson Group. > > Actually it would be more fair to thanks EPITA and Gostai, both worked > on it, and Vaucanson was just the initial impetus to develop this. OK, I will use this: ## This code is adapted from check.mk which was originally ## written by The Vaucanson Group, further developer at ## EPITA and Gostai, then made its way from GNU coreutils ## to end up, largely rewritten, in Automake. > > The only reason I haven't put this in yet is that it would require a > > copyright disclaimer from Vaucanson. What do you think? > > A mere thank, or whatever you feel is most appropriate will be > perfect. OK, thanks. Cheers, Ralf
