OK let's move under tests/smoke in a subsequent patch (this PR has a lot of code change and will probably result in conflicts if we hold out).
Cheers. On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > We can move under tests/smoke. > > But we can do that later. Please merge the current one. > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I have a folder smoke. A Readme saying it's intended as test on a real > > life system. > > > > > > If y don't like it there and care that much. Please merge my current PR > > and change it any way you like. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > When I said "it shouldn't be part of the release", what I meant was that > it > > shouldn't be part of the built released examples. > > > > Unless of course it's written up as a proper example with a proper readme > > with context and is appropriately named like all the other examples. > What > > I don't want to do is confuse users by having integration tests mixed in > > with examples aimed for end users. It's just going to cause confusion. > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:24 AM, nigro_franz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Agree! It is a good idea indeed! > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4. > > > nabble.com/DISCUSS-Smoke-tests-tp4724485p4724492.html > > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
