On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 01:16:58PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:47:13AM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:56:36AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: > >> >> On 13/12/11 00:52, Måns Rullgård wrote: > >> >> >Luca Barbato<[email protected]> writes: > >> >> > > >> >> >>On 13/12/11 00:32, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >> >> >>>--- > >> >> >>> Makefile | 4 +++- > >> >> >>> doc/developer.texi | 4 +--- > >> >> >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Seems ok. > >> >> > > >> >> >But oh so pointless. > >> >> > >> >> Shall we drop it then? > >> > > >> > No. It's a convenient shorthand that will reduce the number of > >> > mistakes in the long run if all developers pick up the habit. > >> > >> People fail to do even the most elementary checking today. This will > >> never change. > > > > Flaming aside :) > > > > This issue has come up again with the breakage of the h264-test program. > > This just adds one line and can save us from such troubles. > > Believe me, it will not help with anything whatsoever. Why would > renaming the test cause people to suddenly start running it?
Let's not be quite so misanthropic :) The tests are not being renamed, I am adding a convenient shorthand. Instead of running make all alltools checkheaders examples testprogs fate one can simply run make check and be sure not to have missed any of them. We might add footest and checkbar in the future and that will also be covered by the "check" target. That's quite a simplification IMNSHO. Also, I will be singing the praises of "check" on IRC and have gnafu compose odes to it, so in no time everybody will know about it. ;) Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
