On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:38:55PM +0200, sardemff7+wayl...@sardemff7.net wrote: > On 11/09/2013 11:12, Sam Spilsbury wrote: > >Quick thought: there's also an important psychological effect to > >building the tests on a standard make because it promotes them to the > >same importance as the rest of your code. They become less of an > >afterthought and it promotes greater care around how people design > >the tests (eg, making the tests clean, making sure they run > >quickly), as well as how the rest of the codebase interacts with the > >tests. We observed a similar effect at Canonical between the projects > >which had test building on by default as opposed to those that did > >not. > > Then we should definitely fix users (developers) and their workflow, > not some arbitrary “problem”, as I said already. > > > >It all depends on whether or not the tests are there as a basic > >safety line for managing releases or whether or not tests are used > >as a tool to iterate and improve quality. In the latter case, > >building them by default is a very sensible decision indeed. > > Not at all. They should be *run* by default in this case, not just be > built. If their point is to check the code, they must do that, not just > build against some headers. See the end of this email.
I agree with the sentiment here, but I think Peters patch is a pragmatic step towards that goal. Kristian _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
