On (24/03/15 16:25), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 03/24/2015 04:08 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (23/03/15 17:53), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:03:03PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>On 03/23/2015 03:59 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>On (23/03/15 14:47), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>On 03/23/2015 02:43 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>On (23/03/15 14:18), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:07:12PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik
wrote:
>>>>>>>>ehlo,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>simple patch is attached.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LS
>>>>>>>Hm, the default CI test doesn't run distcheck?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I admit I haven't ran distcheck myself, but was relying on
the CI link
>>>>>>>Pavel sent..
>>>>>>That's the reason why I do not send link to CI result as an
author of the
>>>>>>patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In my opinion it's reviewer's task.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LS
>>>>>What would be different if Jakub ran CI himself?
>>>>>
>>>>If I had reviewd your patch i would have sent links to CI result which
>>>>run all test (including distcheck and mock build)
>>>I tend to agree with Pavel here: trusting developer's CI links might save
us
>>>some time. It doesn't replace the patch-specific testing, where necessary,
of
>>>course.
>>The best would be if there was some tool that would grab the patches
>>automagically and run the CI tests..
>>
>If we want to safe a time then developers should run CI script locally
>with enabled all tests.
I think it would make my VM for development busy for a couple dozens of
minutes and I would have to limit my work on it. I would prefer to use lab
machines on this task...
You can run test in VM with one core. It would take longer,
but it would not block you.
You can also run CI script directly not PC with all available resources
if you do not use it (lunch break, ...)
Nikolai assumed developers will run script locally. It was already implemented
in the initial version. That was the time we shoudl complain
and change requirements and not year after.
LS