> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Murlin Wenzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Answering my own question: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09788.html > > , I asked this earlier on this year and someone replied saying "don't > > remove it". If it's not removed and serves a particular purpose, maybe > > it should be moved to a different section of the tree to avoid > > confusion in the future (in particular if it's a framework and not > > actually a test / test suite).
Yeah, that was me. I now understand that the LTP Makefile reorganization from earlier in the year attempts to recursively build everything that lives under 'testcases' due to the (reasonable) assumption that everything in 'testcases' is a subtest to be executed under LTP control. 'pounder', however, is not a subtest to be executed under LTP control. It is a separate test execution framework, and in fact, executes LTP's 'runltp' as a subtest within that framework. This allows us to run other standalone tests, test suites, and/or benchmarks along side LTP. I agree that it would make sense to move pounder21 to some other place in the tree. At first glance, 'utils' looks like a reasonable spot. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
