On 26/04/13 15:12, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 08:46 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> You are not going to get me to buy eagerly into a new installed tests
>> scheme for glib if it means that I have to give up make check.
I think it's worth having both, with the majority of tests working
either way (see: libdbus, for which I'd be happy to review additions to
the "installed tests" infrastructure, particularly if you review my
pending patches in exchange).
"make check" is much more convenient when you're just hacking on one
particular project and not using the full jhbuild/ostree/whatever
environment, and "make distcheck" in particular is a great sanity-check
for "is this release candidate viable?". I realise some parts of GNOME
are sufficiently entangled in terms of "X needs the latest snapshot of
Y" that you essentially can't build the development branch without at
least a mini-distribution like jhbuild, but other parts - particularly
low-ish-level libraries like GLib, libsoup, telepathy-glib - are
perfectly reasonable to develop from a plain git checkout.
> Since I've switched the gjs test
> suite to be installed, it's already run over 28 times just so far
> today (UTC), without any human intervention.
I don't see any reason why this couldn't be equally true for "make
check": the Ubuntu Jenkins setup seems to be running "make check" for
everything, in jhbuild. (Admittedly, it seems it mostly fails; but
that's not the test framework's fault.)
S
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
