On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # from Thomas Klausner >>The general opinion was that three *requires are enough, especially as >>testing seems to be seen as an integral part of the build process. > > This is the opinion of a QA get-together, so I'll guess that it is > backed by the logic of "why wouldn't you run the tests?". > > Obviously what we have is not "enough", or people wouldn't ask for more.
We had a number of package maintainers at Oslo from Debian and FreeBSD so actually there was a lot of discussion about situations when running tests is useful versus not. There was substantial, thoughtful debate about different "contexts" for testing -- when certain kinds of tests would be run and others not (e.g. development testing, release testing, packaging testing, install testing). So it wasn't at all a knee-jerk, "always test" mentality. I would characterize the outcome as "lack of consensus" on whether "test_requires" (etc) benefits outweigh costs, and the general (consensus) view was not to recommend changes unless there was a consensus in favor. Regards, David
