On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When running tests for the patch, I think we should just run the tests >> of the dlls that are affected direct;y or indirectly by that change. >> its running the tests for entire wine, which is very time consuming. > > True, but hey, it was easier to code. And getting anything like this > working at all is pretty hard. Figuring out which tests a give > patch affects is an extra challenge I'd rather not face just now. > Once it's up and working well we can refine it. Ok I was expressing my concern as it took around 2-3hrs to see my patch in the patchwatcher. Also as you you running the wine tests all for each patch are you cleaning the .wine directory ( I am bit confused here) > >> What will happen if we have patch barrage, like once when alexander >> comes from vacation. > > It'll fall behind some. If need be, I can run it on a really fast machine. It would better if we have a parallelized version of the tests also run on a fast m/c. Also can you improve the messages. If there are errors, Its possible to only show the test data that failed rather than the complete test run. Also put it in a public repository with you as sole commiter. So If we have any suggestions/improvements, can mail you with the changes (We will not flood ur mail box ;) )
---- VJ > - dan >
