Re: Rethinking remote testing

Ben Elliston wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:19:39PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>   
>> The recent and ongoing discussion over is_remote (and why is that
>> the only is* predicate with an underscore in the name?) and its
>> less-than-entirely-accurate implementation started me thinking about
>> the topic.  What would be a better way to handle remote testing?
>>     
>
> I wondered about that, too. I will add an isremote proc that wraps
> is_remote. We can then try and depreciate is_remote over the
> long-term.
>   

Please hold off doing that -- it may be necessary for isremote to test 
different conditions and is_remote may need to be kept as is for 
compatibility until it is removed.  If is_remote is deprecated now, we 
could have problems later.  Better for testsuites to migrate to a new 
name with new (and correct) semantics than to change the name while 
keeping the broken semantics we have now.


-- Jacob