On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> It's sad to simply reject meaningful automated tests on the basis of doubt
>> that they're important enough to belong in every human-in-the-loop test
>> run.
>> I share the broader vision for automated testing represented by these
>> patches.
>
> +1 We should be encouraging people to submit automated tests.
It seems like there is now a clear consensus to proceed here, so I'll
start looking at committing some of these tests.
> Automated testing is about x10-100 faster than manual testing, so I see new
> tests as saving me time not wasting it.
+1.
> Let's have a new schedule called minute-check with the objective to run the
> common tests in 60 secs.
>
> We can continue to expand the normal schedules from here.
>
> Anybody that wants short tests can run that, everyone else can run the full
> test suite.
>
> We should be encouraging people to run the full test suite, not the fast
> one.
I like this idea, or some variant of it (fastcheck?).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company