On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:56, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mercredi 23 mars 2011 à 18:51 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
> > On 23/03/2011 18:42, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:29:22 -0400
> > > David Bolen wrote:
> > >> Nick Coghlan writes:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011
Le mercredi 23 mars 2011 à 18:51 +, Michael Foord a écrit :
> On 23/03/2011 18:42, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:29:22 -0400
> > David Bolen wrote:
> >> Nick Coghlan writes:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou
> >>> wrote:
> You mean in the "-
On 23/03/2011 18:42, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:29:22 -0400
David Bolen wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
You mean in the "-j" option itself or in "make test"?
I was actually suggesting that -j be the *default* in regrtes
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:29:22 -0400
David Bolen wrote:
> Nick Coghlan writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou
> > wrote:
> >> You mean in the "-j" option itself or in "make test"?
> >
> > I was actually suggesting that -j be the *default* in regrtest itself,
> > with an o
Nick Coghlan writes:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> You mean in the "-j" option itself or in "make test"?
>
> I was actually suggesting that -j be the *default* in regrtest itself,
> with an option to turn it off or force a particular number of
> processes.
Just on
Antoine> If we start promoting a "quicker" way of running tests, then
Antoine> nobody will use the normal way. I'm sorry, I'm -1 on
Antoine> that. There are regressions often enough on the buildbots.
It seems I frequently disagree with Antoine about various things, but on
this I am de
On Mar 23, 2011, at 05:16 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>If we start promoting a "quicker" way of running tests, then nobody
>will use the normal way. I'm sorry, I'm -1 on that. There are
>regressions often enough on the buildbots.
I'm not sure it's worth continuing this thread. I've explained that
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:26:13 -0400
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> 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" :)
>
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
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> You mean in the "-j" option itself or in "make test"?
I was actually suggesting that -j be the *default* in regrtest itself,
with an option to turn it off or force a particular number of
processes.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | nc
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:31:46 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> 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
Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 00:31 +1000, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >> 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
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> 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 pre
> Oops, lost a bit too much context when I changed the thread title.
>
> This discussion started with Barry looking for a "smoke test" that
> would be quick enough to run that more people would be willing to use
> it to pick up gratuitous breakage due to a bad merge rather than
> leaving it for t
14 matches
Mail list logo
