Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Tuesday 21 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:12:23PM CEST: >> > Maybe we should also say that using TESTS_ENVIRONMENT to define a custom >> > test runner is now not only strongly deprecated (as it already was I hope), >> >> No it wasn't. >> > D'oh. I'll be more explicit about that in the NEWS entry then. > >> "test runner" is not a term I would recognize, btw. >> > Suggestion on how to improve it are welcome. As usual, I couldn't come > up with a better or clearer term :-( > >> > but also unsupported and not working anymore? >> >> > Also, should I look for TESTS_ENVIRONMENT usages in google code search? >> > I was really hoping to spae myself the pain... ;-) >> >> Not sure. If anything, you can use regexes to avoid stuff you're not >> interested in. >> >> > > and if not, is it possible to have a compatible one (without too much >> > > maintenance effort duplication)? No need to go the effort right away. >> > > >> > Well, we could add a new option "old-parallel-tests" or something like >> > that, that causes the old code in 'check.am' (with few tweaks in order >> > to support the new parsing of `.log' files) to be used instead of the >> > 'test-driver' script. By refactoring some code in handle_tests(), we >> > could ensure not to add any real complexity to the automake script >> > (w.r.t. to my patches at least); but the duplication between 'check.am' >> > and 'test-driver' will unavoidable IMHO. >> >> Well, if we need to use a name, then the name should be for the new one. >> That way you can have full backward compatibility. >> > I'd rather give the user an incentive to move forward, by having him > retain the old semantics only if he really needs to. > [...]
Hi Stefano, I've seen a few projects that require their automake-managed tests be run sequentially. I suspect that some maintainers will not be eager to adapt their tests to run in parallel solely to accommodate a newer version of automake. If you have only a dozen or so tests, whether they run in sequence or parallel doesn't make a big difference, but the work required to "upgrade" may be considerable. I urge you not to impose such a change. There are already too many projects that require some ancient version of automake. Let's not make it hard to upgrade.
