On Mar 23, 2011, at 02:52 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >Then many people will start running the "smoke test" rather than the >whole suite, which will create new kinds of problems. It's IMO a bad >idea. Let Barry learn about "-j" :)
Well, that's a social problem, not a technical problem. (See other messages in the thread regarding -j.) >> Currently even "make quicktest" takes too long to run to be suitable >> for that task. Leaving out a couple more egregiously slow tests and >> possibly updating it to use the "-j" switch might make for a usable >> option. > >"-j" will precisely help cover the duration of these long tests. By the >way, you should use a higher "-j" number than you have CPUs, since some >tests spend most of their time sleeping and waiting. > >"make quicktest" already skips test_io and test_socket, which test >fundamental parts of Python. I would vote for removing "make quicktest" >rather than promote such a questionable command. Better to rename it than remove it. If 'quicktest' is misleading people into running it rather than 'test' (which frankly, I doubt), then rename it 'smoketest' which seems entirely appropriate to its use case and indicates its value in the spectrum of tests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoketest Because this also rebuilds Python if needed, I think it's entirely appropriate for the push-race use case, where you've already extensively tested your change with a mostly up-to-date tree and now just need to quickly verify that Python won't crash and burn after your local merge. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
