On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:45:25 +0200, Björn Ketelaars <bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl> wrote:
> On Sat 27/08/2016 16:42, Daniel Jakots wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:02:24 +0200, Björn Ketelaars > > <bjorn.ketela...@hydroxide.nl> wrote: > > > > > On Sat 27/08/2016 11:54, Daniel Jakots wrote: > > > > > > > > Update looks good to me. I'm a bit concerned by the test suite > > > > taking much longer than before : > > > > > > > > On 1.0.6 > > > > 1 failed, 489 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xfailed in 557.11 seconds > > > > On 1.0.7 > > > > 1 failed, 507 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xfailed in 1555.24 seconds > > > > > > > > Is only the test suite that takes longer, did you notice any > > > > change while using it normally? > > > > > > Daniel, > > > > > > I'm unable to reproduce your test results: > > > > > > On 1.0.6 > > > 490 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xpassed in 1500.20 seconds > > > On 1.0.7 > > > 508 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xpassed in 1737.95 seconds > > > > > > Running the test suite from 1.0.7 takes a bit longer than running > > > the suite from 1.0.6. I'm inclined to blame the additional tests. > > > Results from both test suites are reproducible (using same > > > machine - amd64). > > > > > > What is interesting is that you have found a failed test. Could > > > you share the test logs? It is not unlikely that this failed test > > > explains the difference in running times. > > > > It's weird because this morning, I ran two times make test and it > > happened both. Now I did it again, and I have > > 490 passed, 62 skipped, 2 xfailed in 285.23 seconds > > and > > 508 passed, 65 skipped, 2 xfailed in 289.07 seconds > > which looks correct. > > > > You didn't see anything weird with real usage (i.e. not with make > > test but with actual backup work)? If so it may be a glitch on my > > side. > > No weirdness here! I've been running it for a couple of days on amd64 > and i386... It's in :)
