On Wednesday 01 December 2004 02:27 CET Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> I generally agree what with Justin said, I just would like to see the
> work broken up a bit more (done incrementally) *and* I don't want to see
> new options because I don't think they're needed. The original proposal
> had a bit of the sound of creating a monster patch that is hard to test
> out and get into the tree.
No, not at all. I plan to refactor it bit by bit, committing every small
(or not so small if I have to do some s/// on each file) chunk which is of
course tested first. As I said, I don't have time to work on it really
regularly and often and I learned that if I keep large chunks of unfinished
code on my disks those tend to get out-of-date quickly and hard to update
when I continue working on stuff.
> It would be fantastic to make tests easier to write. Faster would be
> nice, but only via improving the test code, not worrying about options
> IMO, we start and stop spamd more often than needed.
Most people should run find with the default set of options, the most used
one will probably be "+all". The default user will just skip that load of
in-depth long-running Unit tests I hope we will have one day :)
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
