On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 17:55:03 -0400, David Roundy wrote: > 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.
I realise this may be a bit extreme, but maybe we could do away with the testpref altogether and just ask people to use a send prehook? That puts extra burden on us to test, but we're running the suite anyway. No strong feelings on this. I think my hope was just to lower the barrier to entry for one-off contributors who may be suprised by the test suite being run. "I just wanted to fix a typo!" or in Zooko's case, "make a ChangeLog entry!" (Zooko was not aware of --no-test, and I think the same may be true for many potential contributors) -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgp4aAdhn96Qq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
