RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 23 15:58:26 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109921.html

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:31:46 +1000
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> 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 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.
> 
> I'd be fine with that if we change the -j default to something other
> than "1" (e.g. as I suggested elsewhere, the number of cores in the
> machine).

http://bugs.python.org/issue11651

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-March/109921.html below:

[Python-Dev] Trimming "make quicktest"