On Apr 18, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Stas Bekman wrote:
As I've mentioned t/SMOKE is usually run after t/TEST fails, so it has
always relied on the fact that 'make test' was already run and
therefore didn't require to run its own setup.
Should `make smoke` rely on `make test`, then?
Regards,
David
David Wheeler wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Stas Bekman wrote:
As I've mentioned t/SMOKE is usually run after t/TEST fails, so it has
always relied on the fact that 'make test' was already run and
therefore didn't require to run its own setup.
Should `make smoke` rely on `make test`, then?
On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
% make smoke
make: *** No rule to make target `smoke'. Stop.
But if you wish to make it so, I've no objections :)
No, I have no interest in smoke (thank god!).
Cheers,
David
Stas Bekman wrote:
David Wheeler wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Stas Bekman wrote:
As I've mentioned t/SMOKE is usually run after t/TEST fails, so it
has always relied on the fact that 'make test' was already run and
therefore didn't require to run its own setup.
Should `make smoke` rely on
