On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:41:35 -0400 Steven Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't mean you, particularly. Until we have a framework better > > than the one contributed 7 years ago for testing, it's all in flux, > > and while I could elaborate suggestions for implementing a new one, > > unless someone's actually promising to do it, there are more > > pressing and useful things I could do *now* with the time. > > /me nods. I don't know where a good, solid win is there either, but > if someone *does* know where we could make some solid improvements > (i.e., stuff we could get done in the short term, not pie-in-the-sky > stuff), I'd like to hear it. Well, you can still write your own tests, completely ignoring the existing framework. I have a few volume-operation-related ones I've been using recently. Getting them into a robust state takes time I haven't spent yet, though; I don't consider them at the level of quality for inclusion in the tree at this time. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
