On 23 May 2013 10:16, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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).
But i do not argue about what is the be best deployment scenario. I am arguing about leaving developers to choose: - if (s)he wants to deploy with tests or not, it should be up to him. Technocracy is not better than any other totalitarian forms of government. Because it ignores the needs of individual (for the good of ephemeral "majority", of course). -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
