On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:05PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Martin Storsjö wrote: > >On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Martin Storsjö wrote: > >>On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >>>On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:45:47AM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > >>>>On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> This can be useful in known-broken scenarios like miscompilation > >>>>> by legacy compilers and similar. > >>>>> --- > >>>>> > >>>>> Yeah, one could come up with more elaborate solutions, but this already > >>>>> works and we have cases where it could be useful right away... > >>>> > >>>>This looks like a good improvement over the current situation, thanks! > >>>> > >>>>I guess this should be included in the output sent to fate as well > >>>>(and shown there in some way)? Initially I guess one can add it to > >>>>the > >comments > >>>>column. > >>> > >>>It shows up in the configure line; do you want it shown somewhere else? > >>> > >>>And yeah, I'd probably add it to the comments field of my own FATE > >>>instances if I used the option. > >> > >>I thought of a separate column next to the comments (which is already > >>used for other things in many setups), but plugging it into the comments > >>probably is good for the first step. > > > >In any case, if I was unclear, this patch LGTM. > > Any further comments on this, or interest in pushing it? I'd like to take it > into use.
I was kinda waiting for Janne to make a comment since I spoke with him about this idea in Berlin. But I guess this is good to go. I had one idea how to improve/change this: I could automatically add the "fate-" prefix to the test name to shorten the command line. So --skip-tests="fate-foo-test fate-bar-test" vs --skip-tests="foo-test bar-test" What would you prefer? Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
