On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:58 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:42 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to hear what other (Carl in particular) think about this.
> > If the consensus is for your approach, I would be happy to
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:58 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:42 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to hear what other (Carl in particular) think about this.
> > If the consensus is for your approach, I would be happy to implement
> > it.
>
> In genera
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:57 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth myself on Jun 27 at 11:49 pm:
> > Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> > EMACSDONE=$TEST_DIRECTORY/emacsdone
> > mkfifo $EMACSDONE
> > coproc emacs --batch --eval '(while t (eval (read)) (write-region "\n" nil
> > "'$EM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:58:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> BTW Carl, while we continue our debate, you may consider applying the
> first 9 patches from the series :)
Yes, I already did that.
And I would have even installed all 10 (with the debate still going)
except that I'm seeing tests fai
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:58:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> BTW Carl, while we continue our debate, you may consider applying the
> first 9 patches from the series :)
Yes, I already did that.
And I would have even installed all 10 (with the debate still going)
except that I'm seeing tests fail
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:47:37 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> > "more robust against leaving daemon's around for some reason", etc.
>
> Not sure I agree with this.
I'm sorry. I wasn't clear.
I wasn't advocating one solution over the other. I was just giving an
example of the kind of technical
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:47:37 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> > "more robust against leaving daemon's around for some reason", etc.
>
> Not sure I agree with this.
I'm sorry. I wasn't clear.
I wasn't advocating one solution over the other. I was just giving an
example of the kind of technical m
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:58 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:42 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
> wrote:
> > I would like to hear what other (Carl in particular) think about this.
> > If the consensus is for your approach, I would be happy to implemen
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:10:58 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:42 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
> wrote:
> > I would like to hear what other (Carl in particular) think about this.
> > If the consensus is for your approach, I would be happy to implement
> > it.
>
> In general, I lov
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:42 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> I would like to hear what other (Carl in particular) think about this.
> If the consensus is for your approach, I would be happy to implement
> it.
In general, I love the whole series, thanks! I'm looking forward to our
future, faster
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:42:42 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> I would like to hear what other (Carl in particular) think about this.
> If the consensus is for your approach, I would be happy to implement
> it.
In general, I love the whole series, thanks! I'm looking forward to our
future, faster
Quoth myself on Jun 27 at 11:49 pm:
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> EMACSDONE=$TEST_DIRECTORY/emacsdone
> mkfifo $EMACSDONE
> coproc emacs --batch --eval '(while t (eval (read)) (write-region "\n" nil
> "'$EMACSDONE'" t 0))'
> EMACSFD=${COPROC[1]}
>
> test_emacs() {
> echo "
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:22:57 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth myself on Jun 27 at 11:49 pm:
> > Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> > EMACSDONE=$TEST_DIRECTORY/emacsdone
> > mkfifo $EMACSDONE
> > coproc emacs --batch --eval '(while t (eval (read)) (write-region "\n" nil
> > "'$EM
Quoth myself on Jun 27 at 11:49 pm:
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> EMACSDONE=$TEST_DIRECTORY/emacsdone
> mkfifo $EMACSDONE
> coproc emacs --batch --eval '(while t (eval (read)) (write-region "\n" nil
> "'$EMACSDONE'" t 0))'
> EMACSFD=${COPROC[1]}
>
> test_emacs() {
> echo "
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:17:42 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 7:59 am:
> > I am sure that would work, but I do not like the complexity. How about
> > getting back to standard emacsclient and running a watchdog in the
> > emacs? Like:
> >
> > (defun orphan-wat
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:49:37 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> > > > The only way I know to
> > > > reliably kill a child process is to open a pipe to it and have it exit
> > > > on its own when it reads EOF. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to
>
Austin,
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:22:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:02:12 -0400, Austin Clements
> wrote:
> > This looks like a great idea! The test suite has been getting irritating
> > slow.
> >
> > A few minor comments: This patch would be clearer if it the
> > se
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:02:12 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> This looks like a great idea! The test suite has been getting irritating
> slow.
>
> A few minor comments: This patch would be clearer if it the
> setq-to-let translation were a separate patch. It would also be worth
> adding a big c
Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 7:59 am:
> I am sure that would work, but I do not like the complexity. How about
> getting back to standard emacsclient and running a watchdog in the
> emacs? Like:
>
> (defun orphan-watchdog (pid)
> "Periodically check that the process with id PID is stil
Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> > > The only way I know to
> > > reliably kill a child process is to open a pipe to it and have it exit
> > > on its own when it reads EOF. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to
> > > do this with an emacs daemon (it appears daemon mode aggressive
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:17:42 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 7:59 am:
> > I am sure that would work, but I do not like the complexity. How about
> > getting back to standard emacsclient and running a watchdog in the
> > emacs? Like:
> >
> > (defun orphan-wat
Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 7:59 am:
> I am sure that would work, but I do not like the complexity. How about
> getting back to standard emacsclient and running a watchdog in the
> emacs? Like:
>
> (defun orphan-watchdog (pid)
> "Periodically check that the process with id PID is stil
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:49:37 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> > > > The only way I know to
> > > > reliably kill a child process is to open a pipe to it and have it exit
> > > > on its own when it reads EOF. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to
>
Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jun 28 at 5:03 am:
> > > The only way I know to
> > > reliably kill a child process is to open a pipe to it and have it exit
> > > on its own when it reads EOF. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to
> > > do this with an emacs daemon (it appears daemon mode aggressive
Austin,
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:22:41 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:02:12 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> > This looks like a great idea! The test suite has been getting irritating
> > slow.
> >
> > A few minor comments: This patch would be clearer if it the
> > setq
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:02:12 -0400, Austin Clements
> wrote:
>> ?The trap is there just to cleanly shut down in case of a normal
>> exit [1].
>
> For normal exit we should just put this into test_done. ?Otherwise it is
> not a normal exi
This looks like a great idea! The test suite has been getting irritating slow.
A few minor comments: This patch would be clearer if it the
setq-to-let translation were a separate patch. It would also be worth
adding a big comment at the top of the test explaining why all of the
tests let-bind ev
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Dmitry Kurochkin
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:02:12 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
>> The trap is there just to cleanly shut down in case of a normal
>> exit [1].
>
> For normal exit we should just put this into test_done. Otherwise it is
> not a normal exit a
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:02:12 -0400, Austin Clements wrote:
> This looks like a great idea! The test suite has been getting irritating
> slow.
>
> A few minor comments: This patch would be clearer if it the
> setq-to-let translation were a separate patch. It would also be worth
> adding a big c
This looks like a great idea! The test suite has been getting irritating slow.
A few minor comments: This patch would be clearer if it the
setq-to-let translation were a separate patch. It would also be worth
adding a big comment at the top of the test explaining why all of the
tests let-bind ev
Before the change, every Emacs tests ran in a separate Emacs
instance. Starting Emacs many times wastes considerable time and
it gets worse as the test suite grows. The patch solves this by
using a single Emacs server and emacsclient(1) to run multiple
tests. Emacs server is started on the first
Before the change, every Emacs tests ran in a separate Emacs
instance. Starting Emacs many times wastes considerable time and
it gets worse as the test suite grows. The patch solves this by
using a single Emacs server and emacsclient(1) to run multiple
tests. Emacs server is started on the first
32 matches
Mail list logo
