Will Coleda schrieb:
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
Thumbs up from me.
