On Fri, 2023-04-28 at 18:06 +0100, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> To me at least, it would be unwise not run the test suite.
>
> If you are choosing to use 15-20 year old hardware, you can not reasonably
> to handle a large modern program like Sagemath. More modern machines than
> that get thrown in skips. š
>
I have ~1,000 other modern packages built from source on these machines
and hack on many of them. The hardware is as fast as the day I bought
it. The issue is not that sage is modern, rather that it's still built
like a pet project from 2005.
The test suite is an entirely different topic where your criticism is
more valid. There are a few different issues there, all pretty
irrelevant to this discussion:
* We have many redundant tests
* Doctests inherently require redundancy and are relatively slow
* We have tests for bugs that were fixed in upstream projects
and are already checked by the upstream test suite
* The "too long" warning is outrageously high
* The "too long" warning uses "wall time", which is meaningless
as an objective measure of how much computation is done. SomeoneĀ
with newer hardware can easily introduce a "fast" test thatĀ
takesĀ over a minute for me to run.
Beyond that, whatever time it takes to run the test suite is necessary
and I'm not complaining about it. It's the unnecessary bit that's
annoying.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2e79d3741ff8b5ac98dff01373c6c4ff53f7f42c.camel%40orlitzky.com.
