On 8/30/13 5:03 PM, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote:
(2013/08/31 6:16), Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 8/30/2013 3:59 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Aside from obvious "I don't want to change" complaints, are there any
objections to this change? Is anyone not able to
run the mach testing commands today? Are there
(2013/08/31 6:16), Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 8/30/2013 3:59 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Aside from obvious "I don't want to change" complaints, are there any
objections to this change? Is anyone not able to
run the mach testing commands today? Are there features missing from the mach
commands? P
On 8/30/2013 3:59 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
Aside from obvious "I don't want to change" complaints, are there any
objections to this change? Is anyone not able to run the mach testing
commands today? Are there features missing from the mach commands?
Please file bugs!
Mach and comm-central do
tl;dr the tree currently allows you to run tests via make targets and
mach. The mach commands are more intuitive and easier to support going
forward, so I'm proposing we remove support for using make targets to
run tests. Please take the survey at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/H5LB2GF to respon
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:10:37PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 2012-10-08 3:05 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> >We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for
> >running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there
> >(please write patches!).
> >
> >The build peer
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 2012-10-08 3:05 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for
>> running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there
>> (please write patches!).
>>
>> The build peers (or a
On 10/8/12 8:10 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
When I run tests locally I do so by hand, because I invariably require
more precise control over how the test suite is operating than the make
targets allow. (I have occasionally even needed to bypass runtest.py.)
I expect mach will have the same proble
On 2012-10-08 3:05 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for
running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there
(please write patches!).
The build peers (or at least a few of us) really don't like the make
targets to run tests be
On 10/8/12 12:05 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I'm writing this post to see what obstacles/resistance there are to
removing the make targets for running tests. Obviously a prerequisite is
having mach reach feature parity with the make targets. What other
concerns are there?
How about a comparison o
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> At the very least, you need documentation on where to get or find
> mach and what directory to run it in.
>
> (I don't seem to have it right now, and I'm not sure if the mach
> you're talking about is what I'd get if I 'sudo apt-get instal
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:05:58PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for
> running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there
> (please write patches!).
>
> The build peers (or at least a few of us) really don't like the m
On Monday 2012-10-08 12:40 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On 10/8/12 12:17 PM, L. David Baron wrote:> On Monday 2012-10-08 12:05
> > Updating the documentation on how to run the tests (which is spread
> > across a bunch of places) is extremely important. You should also
> > expect to get more feedb
On 10/8/12 12:34 PM, Jesper Kristensen wrote:
Before you deprecate the make targets, it would be nice if mach actually
works and there is documentation for it.
For documentation, one of the fundamental features of mach is it should
be self-documenting. You should be able to run |mach help| an
On 10/8/12 12:17 PM, L. David Baron wrote:> On Monday 2012-10-08 12:05
> Updating the documentation on how to run the tests (which is spread
> across a bunch of places) is extremely important. You should also
> expect to get more feedback once that happens.
Well, one of the benefits of mach is y
Den 08-10-2012 21:05Gregory Szorc skrev:
We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for
running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there
(please write patches!).
The build peers (or at least a few of us) really don't like the make
targets to run tests becau
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> I'm writing this post to see what obstacles/resistance there are to removing
> the make targets for running tests. Obviously a prerequisite is having mach
> reach feature parity with the make targets. What other concerns are there?
Maintainin
> What other concerns are there?
It took me a not insubstantial amount of effort to develop expertise
with our baroque and only half-documented make commands, and while I'm
happy to believe that the new ones are better, that still doesn't make
the switch simple.
If we want to deprecate the make
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for
> running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there (please
> write patches!).
>
> The build peers (or at least a few of us) really don't like the make
> ta
On Monday 2012-10-08 12:05 -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> I'm writing this post to see what obstacles/resistance there are to
> removing the make targets for running tests. Obviously a
> prerequisite is having mach reach feature parity with the make
> targets. What other concerns are there?
Updatin
We now have a tool in mozilla-central that has a much better UX for
running tests (mach). It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there
(please write patches!).
The build peers (or at least a few of us) really don't like the make
targets to run tests because they are awkward, both to maintain a
20 matches
Mail list logo
