--- Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The primary feature that we've seen missing in the Perl core is the > ability > to run tests in parallel. This would greatly reduce our timelines in > the > fix-make-make test cycle that we go through in making changes in the > core.
Yves was also pointing out stuff about the smoke tests. This is another area I've no experience in. Is this a matter of looking at Test::Smoke and figuring out how to integrate our work with it and seeing if it doesn't fall down? After that, I'm not sure what would be involved in running tests in parallel with this. > Overall, I believe that we need to be a bit cautious in taking a new > rewrite > of Test::Harness into the core. No question about it. This is one of the most critical pieces of software out there. If it fails, everything else falls down, too. > Before commiting it to the core, I'd > like to use it in the smoke tests first to make sure that any > performance issues are discovered in advance, TAPx::Parser collects a lot more information thann Test::Harness and the cost is that it currently runs a bit slower, despite my working very hard to profile and optimize it. I still have more tricks up my sleeve for that, but I suspect that running tests in parallel would be the key for this. > and that we are able to tap into the > wide variety of architectures and operating systems that the core > smoke tests allow. Though the latest test results and comments for TAPx::Parser look promising, we don't have access to that 'wide variety of architecture'. How can we test something so key without throwing the switch? This concerns me, but I don't know enough about this area to really comment. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
