Am 23.05.2013 um 10:16 schrieb 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). What do you mean? Norbert
