On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alec Warner wrote:
>> [1] I fully support server-side tests but I have low expectations for
>> their implementation or deployment.
>
> Why so low? I'm pretty optimistic. ;)

Because the only person willing to work on them is you, and you are a
single point of failure; + busy.

>
>> Also it stands to reason that
>> distributed tests scale better in the long run and it is likely that
>> we could make our local tests run much faster if we dedicated some
>> developer time to it.  I am sensing a possible SOC project here?
>
> The problem with running the tests locally is that our dataset is
> pretty large and the types of QA tests that it needs are pretty
> expensive. Given these constraints, it makes more sense to do the
> tests on a dedicated server than to do it on a client which may have
> limited resources.

Well if you run the expensive tests on our large datasets every time
someone commits you may soon destroy the scm server too without some
modifications, either to the tests (a daemon that caches tree state?)
or to our commit processes (pushing less often means tests run less
often means server doesn't die) or some combination of these things.

If the entire git tree is in a memory-backed FS; I'm not sure how fast
the checks are (if we eschew the memory-based daemon thing).

> - --
> Thanks,
> Zac
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkkgYPMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaONpQCeJRZY1JHxreTbvQpi8R9PIlDh
> 6EYAoKEbAfmp5r5XplG1JhU+zMMK+jyp
> =R44q
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>