Ovid writes: > --- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > child directory I'm fairly certain of. I am certain that more > > > than one 'extra tests' directory is needed, > > > > Why are you certain of this? It seems far from obvious to me. > > for example: > > xt/smoke > > The latter of which is designed to run smoke tests against a wide > variety of Perl versions. That should not be in the t/ directory, but > it's also clearly not an author test.
Just to be clear (because this is an area I'm ignorant about, not because there's anything wrong with your explanation) this is for the situation when testing a module with several Perl versions requires something other than merely running the standard tests on each Perl version, and as such these tests wouldn't routinely be run by the author (because he's just developing with one version of Perl to hand) but are available for use by people specifically doing this kind of smoke testing -- have I got that right? > Regardless of the examples we come up with, I'm terribly leery of > starting with the assumption that "we will only ever need one extra > test directory and therefore should not plan for more". Sure. I didn't say I was _against_ this level of hierarchy, nor that I was certain we wouldn't need. I merely asked why whoever-it-was-whose- name-you-snipped-from-the-above was certain we would -- so as to provide guidance to those of us who haven't yet worked it out. > Enforcing arbitrary limits at the beginning is not a good idea. Indeed not, but nor is creating lots of structure that isn't going to be needed; it's a balance. > > > As for the 'xt' name: > > > > Nobody is intuitively know what "xt" means > > Because 't/' is self-explanatory? Of course not, but that's no reason to make things worse when there are plenty of other more descriptive potential directory names out there. Smylers
