On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:21:18PM -0400, Bob Rogers wrote: >> From: James E Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:55:02 -0400 >> >> Yes, when one of the 'make codingstd_tests' accumulates sufficient >> PASSes, we promote it to 'make test'. Those that are not yet passing >> can generally be described as: "Requires cage-cleaner with vast number >> of tuits." >> . . . >> So, no, failures in these files are not from showstoppers. They're a >> TODO for my golden years (and those of several other Parrot developers). >> >> I committed a fuller explanation in r30292. > > Perhaps "make fulltest" should run the "make codetest" target instead > of "make codingstd_tests"? The "codetest" target is the one that > means "run the codingstd tests that are part of 'make test'". > This would allow "make fulltest" to still run the required subset > of coding standard tests (i.e., the same ones as "make test") > without having to run the entire codingstd suite (which produces > the ignorable failures). And we can remove the note from > the release_manager guide entirely, since "make fulltest" will > run exactly what we want (and any errors in coding tests are then > significant). > > Pm >
+1 -- Will "Coke" Coleda
