| 1 |
On Tue, 1 May 2007 21:53:36 +0200 |
| 2 |
Maurice van der Pot <griffon26@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Too complicated. Bombarding the user with pointless alternatives is |
| 4 |
> > not the same as giving the user choice. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I'm not sure why this is a reply to my message instead of the message |
| 7 |
> I replied to. They both provide more or less the same choice to the |
| 8 |
> user. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This thread is not about what's to be presented to the user. This |
| 11 |
thread is about the tests. Discussing what's to be presented to the |
| 12 |
user at this stage is premature. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > I'm also highly sceptical that the properties you listed are |
| 15 |
> > boolean. Resource hungry on an IP22 could be a walk in the park for |
| 16 |
> > an X16... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I suppose that's possible, but if you look at it like that probably |
| 19 |
> everything can be called resource hungry on some machines. And if you |
| 20 |
> own a Blue Gene, you probably don't worry too much and enable |
| 21 |
> everything. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Or do you mean that for instance tests involving lots of floating |
| 24 |
> point calculations are a big deal for cpus that use FP emulation? |
| 25 |
> Isn't that peanuts compared to the tests that would be called |
| 26 |
> resource hungry here? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The point is, on some archs it is reasonable to expect that many users |
| 29 |
will have sixteen plus logical CPUs with frequencies measured in at |
| 30 |
least hundreds of MHz and memory measured in gigabytes, and many other |
| 31 |
users will have a single sub-hundred MHz CPU and maybe 128MBytes RAM if |
| 32 |
we're lucky. Test suites like, say, Boost's, are trivial to run on the |
| 33 |
former and impossible on the latter. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> We wouldn't have to prove to anyone that a test is resource hungry. We |
| 36 |
> would just have to put each set of tests into one of two groups. If |
| 37 |
> you're not sure in which group it belongs, it probably doesn't matter |
| 38 |
> that much anyway. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Look at merge times... everybody agrees openoffice, mozilla firefox, |
| 41 |
> gcc and qt take quite some time to emerge and that vim, bash and |
| 42 |
> iptables do not. That's the kind of distinction that would be useful. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
It's not that simple. You're forgetting that many archs routinely deal |
| 45 |
with systems with eight or sixteen way CPUs. If a package parallelises, |
| 46 |
it's fast on such systems. If it doesn't, it's immensely slow. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> > > fex: |
| 49 |
> > Please don't abuse the English language in that manner. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Since you took the time to highlight this apparently grave injustice |
| 52 |
> to the English language, would you please explain it to me so I can do |
| 53 |
> better next time? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
'fex' isn't English, and it comes across as extremely annoying and |
| 56 |
unprofessional to many native speakers. It's worse than AOL style 'r u |
| 57 |
2' things because 'e.g' is a similarly short and entirely correct |
| 58 |
alternative. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives