It is a longer story, Ryan. And *not* a trivial change to the runner. I
will reply tomorrow. I am at a pub right now. To you, cheers :)
On Aug 7, 2014 11:36 PM, "Ryan Ernst" <r...@iernst.net> wrote:

> Only in the last month or so did I learn that -Dtests.iters doesn't
> really "work".  What I mean is in regards to randomization.  Each
> iteration currently is *exactly* the same as far as randomization
> (each iteration uses the same master seed).  And because of this, I
> understand that different people have their own "beasting" scripts
> that run the test essentially N times from a shell to force different
> seeds in each iteration.
>
> Why not create a different seed for each iteration when -Dtests.iters
> is used?  This way the test would still spit out a reproducible run
> line for a specific iteration, but each iteration would have good
> randomization (so trying to hit a rare bug could be done with
> -Dtests.iters).
>
> I'm curious if there is history here as to why test iters is done this
> way, or what peoples opinions are on moving towards the approach I
> suggested above.
>
> Thanks!
> Ryan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to