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 > >
