Re: test_requires

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Eric Wilhelm
<[email protected]> wrote:
> # from Thomas Klausner
>>The general opinion was that three *requires are enough, especially as
>>testing seems to be seen as an integral part of the build process.
>
> This is the opinion of a QA get-together, so I'll guess that it is
> backed by the logic of "why wouldn't you run the tests?".
>
> Obviously what we have is not "enough", or people wouldn't ask for more.

We had a number of package maintainers at Oslo from Debian and FreeBSD
so actually there was a lot of discussion about situations when
running tests is useful versus not.  There was substantial, thoughtful
debate about different "contexts" for testing -- when certain kinds of
tests would be run and others not (e.g. development testing, release
testing, packaging testing, install testing).

So it wasn't at all a knee-jerk, "always test" mentality.

I would characterize the outcome as "lack of consensus" on whether
"test_requires" (etc) benefits outweigh costs, and the general
(consensus) view was not to recommend changes unless there was a
consensus in favor.

Regards,
David