[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mark expensive tests
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: mark expensive tests |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:49:10 +0200 |
> From: John Wiegley <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:08:50 -0800
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> How about this:
>
> make check sanity tests
> make morecheck sanity tests + regular tests
> make fullcheck sanity tests + regular tests + extensive tests
Fine by me, but I think having sanity run up to, say, 4 or 5 min
(based on what we have now) should be okay. IOW, we should have the
entire current test suite (with perhaps the single exception of remote
file-notify-tests) in the 1st category, IMO.
- Re: mark expensive tests, (continued)
- Re: mark expensive tests, Phillip Lord, 2016/01/07
- Re: mark expensive tests, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/08
- Re: mark expensive tests, Achim Gratz, 2016/01/08
- Re: mark expensive tests, John Wiegley, 2016/01/08
- Re: mark expensive tests, Achim Gratz, 2016/01/09
- Re: mark expensive tests, Simon Michael, 2016/01/12
- Re: mark expensive tests, John Wiegley, 2016/01/08
- Re: mark expensive tests,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: mark expensive tests, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Paul Eggert, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Paul Eggert, 2016/01/04
Re: mark expensive tests, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Michael Albinus, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Michael Albinus, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/04
- Re: mark expensive tests, Michael Albinus, 2016/01/04