Because I think it makes more sense as a default? Usually when I run with tests.iters, I just search for a seed that fails. When I find it, I go fix the bug and run again.
But that's just me. That's why I asked if others think it makes sense as a default too. There is no functionality change, just different default. Shai On May 10, 2013 3:33 PM, "Robert Muir" <[email protected]> wrote: > why change it? > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Can we default tests.failfast to true? I don't know how common it is to >> run with -Dtests.iters=N, not specify -Dtests.maxfailures AND wanting to >> see all N tests finish. >> >> At any rate, if someone wishes to, he can always specify >> -Dtests.failfast=false. It now depends what is the default behavior we want >> to have. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> Shai >> > >
