On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 10:17 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:22:38AM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > One last things here (thanks, Pavel, for pointing this out), I'd > > prefer the 'syntax' suite being called 'syntax-check' just because > > people are already used to the 'syntax-check' name. > > > > So, please, would you mind changing it as well? > > I don't mind changing it if we agree on the naming, I'll have one last > argument for the shorter and easier to type name, coping it from the > comment on gitlab: > > To me it feels redundant to have the `check` as part of the suit label > as you already know that you are running test suit so the check is > somehow implied. Consistency is a nice thing if it makes sense, but we > are completely changing the workflow so I don't see any reason to pick > longer and redundant name just for consistency reasons. > > Based on that I still prefer using simply `syntax`, let's see of others > have some opinion about it. For what it's worth, I also prefer 'syntax': the -check suffix is useful for make because it highlights that you're verifying some property of the program, and also clearly ties make check make syntax-check together. In the case of Meson, the fact that you're verifying something is explicit in the name of the ninja target, and also ninja test --suite unit ninja test --suite syntax are already very obviously connected. Using 'syntax-check' for the latter would, if anything, make the relationship unbalanced: why didn't we call the former 'unit-check' then? The switch to Meson is a clear-cut break from what we had before, and we should take the opportunity to re-evaluate whether our existing decisions are still valid in a post-autotools world: in this specific case, I think it makes more sense to change the name rather than stick with the historical one. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
