On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 21:11 -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Hi all, > I just looked at the latest libevent, and I'm typically not one to > suggest this, but because libevent switched over to libtool in the 2.x > release (which is a pain in the ass to integrate), I think we just > drop the libevent testcase(s). I assume the maintainers run their > testcases on a subset of Unix machines, so it would just be an > annoying earmark that LTP has to maintain a dead // useless version of > libevent (eventually our version will go out of date and the code that > we have will bear little relevance and may be more buggy than the > latest version which should have appropriate tests and be executed and > triaged appropriately upstream).
+1. Of course I am not in a position of saying something about what it should be done, but I totally agree that LTP should strive in keeping only well maintainted tests. It's harmful to keep unmantained code, it bitrots and tends to make everyone's life difficult. > Thanks, > -Garrett > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
