On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> It's sad to simply reject meaningful automated tests on the basis of doubt >> that they're important enough to belong in every human-in-the-loop test >> run. >> I share the broader vision for automated testing represented by these >> patches. > > +1 We should be encouraging people to submit automated tests.
It seems like there is now a clear consensus to proceed here, so I'll start looking at committing some of these tests. > Automated testing is about x10-100 faster than manual testing, so I see new > tests as saving me time not wasting it. +1. > Let's have a new schedule called minute-check with the objective to run the > common tests in 60 secs. > > We can continue to expand the normal schedules from here. > > Anybody that wants short tests can run that, everyone else can run the full > test suite. > > We should be encouraging people to run the full test suite, not the fast > one. I like this idea, or some variant of it (fastcheck?). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
