Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 04:05:12PM CEST: > On 22 Aug 2010, at 17:55, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I've had this patch series half-done in my tree for a long time, > > and have now taken the time to fix the missing bits. > > Do you have (or could you easily move) this on a private topic branch > already? If so, please push the topic branch to a public repo to make > it easier for me to test.
Done now: it's named parallel-tests. > I'd still like to roll the next release in a week or two though. Do > you think this patch series is stable enough to push just before that > release? I was definitely aiming for this release. Actually, I have one more patch to use Autobuild, and my plan was to then get the sysroot branch merged and then build and test Libtool in all setups I have available and send them to the Autobuild site for reference. This parallel-tests patch series makes it easier to submit logs of the failed tests. > I'm leaning towards holding off until just after the release: > anyone who wants to test that code can easily clone the post-release > head of the master branch... and we don't run the risk of making a > release that blows up for casual users in unforseen ways. WDYT? Well, I hope that I can convince you otherwise, but sure, after the release is still better than never. Maybe it helps to explain that I actually had the meat of this patch, the parallel-tests enabling code, in my test tree for almost two years now. In fact, when I merged Akim's parallel-tests driver code, I used Libtool as testing ground. So, while obviously there can be bugs, and due to size alone chances are there will be ;-) I'm optimistic that this won't be too risky. > > parallel-tests requires a new Automake for building the Libtool package > > itself. Users of Libtool macros should still be able to cope with > > Autoconf 2.59 and Automake 1.9.6. I tested this on GNU/Linux. > > So, with a distribution's preinstalled libtool package, we are still > able to work fully with older autotools, and the Automake 1.11.1 > requirement is only for running the old testsuite? Or only for > running the old testsuite in parallel? The new Automake is merely needed for the toplevel Makefile. It is not needed for the old tests/demo*/ directories and not for running any of the tests. Autoconf 2.62 is purely needed for the toplevel configure and for creating scripts that use getopt.m4sh. I verified each of these two requirements, by running autoreconf-2.59 in all old tests/demo*/ directories, having Autoconf 2.59 and Automake 1.9.6 first in $PATH, and running 'make -k check' that way, successfully, on GNU/Linux. > I'd like to try it out (preferably without extracting the patches > from emails on my laptop, transferring them to the test servers, > and applying them there) before giving the all clear. Of course. > But, I think > it is not worth your expending too much more effort on enhancing > this series if my plan to migrate those tests to Autotest comes to > fruition in the next month or two, so if I don't get back with a > review in 72hrs, and if you are confident that we're not opening > ourselves up to a slew of reports from casual early adopters who > have trouble with the altered testsuite, then in principle I have > no problem with merging. Great. Thanks! Ralf