> If you want to change the skip mechanism on Linux, I've already said > that's fine by me. Let's hear from other Linux users: is the > mechanism useless to you? Counterproductive? I've got nothing new > to say about it. I haven't seen a specific suggestion for what > you'd *like* to do here, apart from what appear to be rhetorical > devices. I use two Linux boxes with somewhat different setups, and some tests are skipped on one box but not on the other. I'd be happier if I could tune the skip mechanism by editing a file that's not checked in. The following would probably work well: when the file doesn't exist, the internal table is used; but when the file exists, it replaces the internal table. (I thought about copying the internal table to the file when the file doesn't exist, but the problem with that is that if the internal evolves, you don't automatically get the updates, even if you don't edit the file.) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4