[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test runner a script, not a shell function

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tests: make test runner a script, not a shell function
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:45:50 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Monday 20 June 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:22:28AM CEST:
> > [Adding bug-grep, dropping bug-coreutils and automake-patches]
> re-adding the latter.
> > I've noticed that grep uses a definition of TESTS_ENVIRONMENT very similar
> > to that of coreutils (the one we've just fixed), so it will break with
> > oncoming automake too.
> That may be a sign that you may not want to actually break this code
> with your proposed changes to Automake.
In fact I don't mind breaking it, because the problem stemmed from an
unidiomatic (and bordering on uncorrect) usage of the TESTS_ENVIRONMENT
variable.  This is not to blame Jim or other coreutils maintainers,
because such an usage was there since before 'parallel-tests' and
LOG_COMPILER were available, so that "twisted usage" was truly required
in order to work around the Automake limiations.  But now that those
limitations have been lifted, I think the correct thing to do is just
go for a more idiomatic setup (and most importantly, Jim agreed with me
on this).

> Put another way: it's a good idea to estimate the level of breakage
> you're going to burden upon others (a couple of projects, dozens,
> hundreds), the amount of work needed on their side to fix it, and the
> amount of work (or possibility) it would take to change your code so
> they are not broken in the first place.
> Also, of course, NEWS entries (and probably automake.texi entries) for
> such changes are a good idea.
I agree with this, and in fact I've posted a NEWS entry this afternoon;
the documentation, maybe with an example or two, can go in a follow-up
> One thing I've regularly done with new code that is not 100% backward
> compatible is have a new Automake option for them.  That is exactly why
> there is a 'parallel-tests': it is not fully compatible with the simple
> test driver, and requires work on behalf of developers using Automake.
This easily might become a maintainance nightmare though.  In this
case, I say we should help the users make a transition by adding good
explanations and examples to the manual, and stop there.

If you disagree, we can revisit the issue before the merge to master,
and add a compatibility layer, but I'd keep that for later.  This series
have already undergone too many respins IMHO.

> > Unfortunately, I don't have an FSF assignment
> > for grep, so someone else should fix that issue :-(
> You can do minor fixes without assignments.
> (Of course, I don't maintain grep, so it's up to them.)
> Cheers,
> Ralf

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]