2013/5/23 Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> > > 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). >
I deploy without tests. But I dont unload it. I just have configuration to load only code without tests. And I think guys who try mobile development with Pharo not deploy application with tests to apple store
