On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, 08:31 Joel Sherrill, <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 9:54 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> >> On 31/5/18 6:44 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: >> > On 31 May 2018 at 02:02, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org <mailto: >> j...@rtems.org>> >> > wrote: >> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee >> > <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com <mailto:vijaykumar9...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > On 31 May 2018 at 00:28, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org >> > <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: >> > I may not understand correctly but there is test_run and >> > coverage_run. Someone >> > suggested making coverage_running an option to test_run. If >> that's >> > what's being >> > asked for, then I think doing it in a follow up patch is OK. >> > >> > If that's the intended request, perhaps a ticket should be >> filed. >> > >> > >> > Sorry for all the confusion. >> > This patch doesn't change the way test works. It only adds an >> option to run >> > the coverage script. coverage_run just runs the >> coverage.coverage_run >> > >> > >> > :) And I am saying if we want to have one test_run with an >> argument, do it as >> > a future work iteration. File a ticket. >> > >> > We need to get the code working on the master. >> > >> > Okay, we can keep that as a future work (I haven't thought about it >> though). :) >> > Getting it to work on master is our primary objective. >> > >> >> Was a ticket raised to removing 'coverage_run' and to use 'test_run'? >> > > I haven't seen tickets for any of the issues we identified. > was there supposed to be tickets for each issue?
> >> Chris >> >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel