* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 06:50:12PM CEST: > On Friday 01 April 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > tests/remake-bug8365.test | 99 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > and the name of the new test is inconsistent. I suggest either > > pr8365.test (yeah, can see you cringe already) or remake-timing.test > > or so. > > > [Disclaimer: BIKESHEDDING follows] > I have to object to this. First, IMHO the "correct" way to resolve > this inconsistency would be to give more expressive names to the > existing `pr*.test' tests (so that `pr9.test' would become, e.g., > `config-aux-dir-pr9.test'), not to "dumb down" the names of new tests. > Second, I really do believe that a name like `remake-bug8365.test' is > better than your proposed alternatives, because it's a good compromise > between length and expressivenes:
If you want both number and expressive name, let's put the number first, so that the first 8 characters of the name before the dot can be unique, e.g., pr8365-remake-timing.test. At least that is portable then. > > Will the new test work on a file system with sub-second granularity > > where 'touch' has the issues described at 'info Autoconf --index touch'? > > > Uh-oh, this could be a problem. In order to trigger the bug, various > files need to have the *same* timestamp. So what about using the `-t' > option of touch instead? See the attached squash-in. Well, the 'date' options are not so portable, see the Autoconf manual. I wouldn't fix anything until I see a failure in the wild. Thanks, and sorry for being so picky, Ralf
