On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:45:24PM +0100, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 15:40:31 -0600, zooko wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2008, at 12:22 PM, David Roundy wrote: > > > > > This looks good to me. Is there any reason we shouldn't > > > > > > darcs setpref test 'make disttest'? > > I'll have to confess that I tend to record --no-test. It makes me feel > guilty, but I get so impatient!
That's fine, as long as the tests get run some time (e.g. when pushing). I also record --no-test, and then run the tests later, and typically I apply a bunch of patches and push them all together--and if there's a bad one in the batch, then I end up having to work to figure it out. > Maybe we could reconsider the test defaults? Would something like a > maintainer posthook do the trick? The maintainers can certainly use different settings for the test, but I don't think there's a test that's much faster that will really help significantly--except that we could skip the unit tests, which involve code that is almost never touched. In fact, with some work, we could potentially only rerun the unit tests when code that affects them is modified. That could save a lot of time--but would be hard to code. David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
