| 1 |
On Tue, 01 May 2007 21:51:17 -0400 |
| 2 |
Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Sure, but now you're requiring me to go through all that extra work |
| 4 |
> if I want any of the benefits of EAPI=1. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It is likely that EAPI-1 will be stricter in quite a few areas... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Or, third option, is that everyone marks their packages as "low |
| 9 |
> priority tests, don't run them" just to switch to EAPI=1, and we have |
| 10 |
> no gain over what we have now. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No, even that's a gain. It means that arch teams *know* when a test |
| 13 |
failure isn't a problem. But 'everyone' won't do that. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> I think this thread in general overestimates the value of tests in |
| 16 |
> packages. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
To maintainers, possibly. Not to arch teams. The way test suites are |
| 19 |
now makes arch teams' jobs a lot harder than they should be. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives