[darcs-users] patch: add makefile target named "disttest" which does the test currently written in _darcs/prefs/prefs

[David Roundy]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:45:24PM +0100, Eric Y. Kow wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 15:40:31 -0600, zooko wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 2008, at 12:22 PM, David Roundy wrote:
> > 
> > > This looks good to me.  Is there any reason we shouldn't
> > >
> > > darcs setpref test 'make disttest'?
> 
> I'll have to confess that I tend to record --no-test.  It makes me feel
> guilty, but I get so impatient!

That's fine, as long as the tests get run some time (e.g. when
pushing).  I also record --no-test, and then run the tests later, and
typically I apply a bunch of patches and push them all together--and
if there's a bad one in the batch, then I end up having to work to
figure it out.

> Maybe we could reconsider the test defaults?  Would something like a
> maintainer posthook do the trick?

The maintainers can certainly use different settings for the test, but
I don't think there's a test that's much faster that will really help
significantly--except that we could skip the unit tests, which involve
code that is almost never touched.  In fact, with some work, we could
potentially only rerun the unit tests when code that affects them is
modified.  That could save a lot of time--but would be hard to code.

David