| 1 |
On N, 2009-04-09 at 15:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:12:02 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > It is quite irresponsible to enable that by default for the FULL user |
| 5 |
> > base, given the state of the tree in regards to it |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Which is why we are not talking about enabling it for the tree. We are |
| 8 |
> talking about enabling it for a subset of the tree that's guaranteed to |
| 9 |
> have been tested by it. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > many upstreams stance on tests and their failures |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So for those packages, RESTRICT tests like you should be doing anyway. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > and the (very) considerable extra time it takes to run them while |
| 16 |
> > it's already slower in relation to binary distributions. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> PROPERTIES="slow-tests" then. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Every single test on any package is going to be done slower than not |
| 21 |
running tests. |
| 22 |
This PROPERTIES proposal has no relevance to the argument of why it is |
| 23 |
an extremely bad idea to enable it by default. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
All developers should enable it (a QA enforcement), but users by default |
| 26 |
- no, NO. |
| 27 |
There is more to a distribution than technical considerations. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> We've been over all of this several times previously. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yes, and by my understanding this will not be happening anytime soon, if |
| 32 |
ever, so I can repeat all my sound objections to it whenever you bring |
| 33 |
it up again in the more distant future, thank you. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Mart Raudsepp |
| 38 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 39 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
| 40 |
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio |
Archives