On 2013-05-23, at 10:12, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 23.05.2013 um 09:53 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]>: > >> Hmm, there are different views possible on this. >> > Absolutely! > >> We should never give up the possibility of building/constructing really >> small images. There has been massive work done on modularisation, unloading >> and stripping. Let's keep that option/route open. >> > That's my only point. Having tests packaged separately just opens the > possibility to make things smaller. > >> I personally doubt how much difference tests actually make compared to other >> stuff, but that does not mean that they should no longer be unloadable. >> > agreed. > >> I stopped trying to minimise production images, because it is not worth the >> trouble: it is a lot of work, memory is relatively cheap and I need the >> tools to remain present, just in case I want to debug. Even running tests is >> a kind of debugging and/or quality control: a way to confirm that the >> production image is (still) working OK. This is all useful and a small price >> to pay, IMHO. >> > That is the funny part in this discussion. I stopped minimizing them as well. > On most images I use RFB and like to have the full fledge installation being > present. I stopped even to use cleanUpForProduction because it removes SUnit. > I hook up SUnit to rest handlers and trigger them from the outside to do > runtime sanity checks, e.g. used by monit.
so that means nobody *actually* loads code without tests? :D (evil laugh).
