On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Jonathan Swartz wrote:
> Wow, putting them in MANIFEST.skip - what a simple and great idea. :) I
> don't even need the environment variable in that case. Anyone who is running
> 'make test' in the git source will see the internal tests, as they
> should...anyone who
On Aug 1, 2009, at 7:59 AM, David Golden wrote:
Wow, putting them in MANIFEST.skip - what a simple and great
idea. :) I
don't even need the environment variable in that case. Anyone who
is running
'make test' in the git source will see the internal tests, as they
should...anyone who has the
> IMHO, you should still include author-only tests in your published
> distributions, even if they don't run during the usual "test"
> target. That way, you can still get patches from developers who can't
> (or won't) pull the code from the repository.
Frankly, I'm not too worried about missing o
Elliot Shank wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:51:57AM -0700, Jonathan Swartz wrote:
Is there a standard for signifying internal-only tests, and for make
test to figure out when they should run?
The normal way is to have them skip unless some magic environment
variable
# from Yanick Champoux
# on Saturday 01 August 2009 09:19:
>To get around this problem, what I sometime do is to use the
>environment TEST_AUTHOR, but instead of just setting it to a true
> value, I set it to the list of modules I own. E.g.,
As long as you don't mind running others' test
