I was going to argue, but it's not worth it. What you propose is fine. On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 January 2018 at 14:43, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > So why can't you just run "make test" if that's faster? > > I can (and do), but I also run it the other way if I need to pass > additional options. I'll then notice that I forgot -j0, ctrl-C out, > then run it again with -j0. > > That's a minor irritation for me, but for folks that don't already > know about the -j0 option, they're more likely to just go "CPython's > test suite is annoyingly slow". > > To provide a bit more detail on what I'd suggest we do: > > * "-j1" would explicitly turn off multiprocessing > * "-j0" and "-jN" (N >= 2) would explicitly request multiprocessing > and error out if there's a conflicting flag > * not setting the flag would be equivalent to "-j0" by default, but > "-j1" if a conflicting flag was set > > The testing options that already explicitly conflict with the > multiprocessing option are: > > * -T (tracing) > * -l (leak hunting) > > "-j1" would likely also be a better default when the verbosity flags > are set (since the output is incredibly hard to read if you have > multiple verbose tests running in parallel). > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
