--- On Thu, 26/3/09, chromatic <chroma...@wgz.org> wrote: > From: chromatic <chroma...@wgz.org>
> That's the only reason I wouldn't do it, either -- > and in that case, I'd try > to find a way to make screwing up production data > impossible. Some people see > reasons why you can't or shouldn't run tests on > production machines. I see > obstacles to remove. (Note that that attitude doesn't > always work.) That's the main reason why our tests don't run on production right now. I would like, at the very least, to have a './Build sanity' target to ensure that guaranteed non-destructive tests are run, but the strange argument I'm facing is that "production should be an exact copy of staging and thus tests on staging should be enough". The word "should" makes my trigger finger itch. I want those tests, but the people arguing are huge Java fans and argue that "Java is safe to deploy, why not Perl?" Sigh. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6
