On Apr 1, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
If build, test, and install are considered the critical path, why was Build/make never changed to simple run "test" always as part of the builds success or failure?
Just curious. In a way, I'd be much happier if 'perl Build' or 'make' outright failed if the tests didn't pass, just like if there was a c/linking error.
Yeah, good question. I guess it's mostly historical. There's nothing really stopping us from creating an 'everything' action that does a 'build', 'test', and 'install' all in a row. Or maybe just the 'build' and 'test'.
Anyone else like that idea?
-Ken
