-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/24/2011 10:51 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > If you are going to argue > for running some tests but not others after making changes, shouldn't > there be a notion of relevance involved? IMO "the" tests for modules > with dependents should include the tests for their dependents, for > example. Modules that are leaves in the dependency tree presumably > can be unit tested and leave it at that. That was precisely my proposal: when trying to check in changes to a stdlib module, we required that developers ensure that the module's tests, *and* those of its dependents, pass. We would need to add new testing infrastructure to support this expectation by computing (and saving) the dependency graph of the stdlib. I originally suggested build time for this, but now think that it would better be built during an intial full run of the suite. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver at palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2MncgACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5WWwCfZVNtfIsPZWx6o5fC08Dh+JHV EKsAn19jQ//9TGLhMs0yCiY5zDBXNEoD =VVCq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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