Re: [PATCH] big test separation POC
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] big test separation POC |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.02.1307010652240.2808@localhost6.localdomain6 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] big test separation POC (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> Note about the POC patch limitations/questions: >> >> - is deriving a schedule with a piece of shell okay? >> or should perl/python/whatever scripting be better? > > I would think all we need are the results, i.e. the schedule files, plus > some Makefile entries for them. You can replicate data, but maintaining a set of files consistently looks like a bad idea to me, because it means that you have to update all replicated data for all changes. The current status is that there are two files, parallel & sequential, so it is not too bad. With big tests that could be 4, so it seems reasonnable to have at least some automatic derivation. >> - I'm really not sure about VPATH stuff. > > This should be totally transparent to VPATH builds. Sure:-) It means that I have not tested that, so it may or may not work. >> - I do not understand why the makefile specifies $(srcdir) before >> local files in some places. > > For VPATH builds :-) Hmmm. That is not what I call "transparent":-) So I understand that derived files should not have them, because they would be put in the build tree instead of the source tree. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: