Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, we should have separate the build and test processes rather than > trying to cram all testing into the build process. If you're having a > problem, it's useful to be able to get binaries out of Koji to test them > locally, without having to indirect all testing through Koji. > And testing may be very resource-intensive; we don't want to block the > builders on that. Not sure what advantage you see here. As to the first argument: if the Koji build fails in a way that is reproducible on your own machine, that says that you didn't bother to do a trial build before submitting to Koji; which is surely not a habit that we should condone or encourage. As to the second: the only way that separate build and test steps save any resources is if a significant percentage of build jobs don't get tested, which again is not something that I think we should encourage or optimize for. It appears to me that Koji has pretty sizable per-job overhead, and so I'm not going to voluntarily break one job into two if I plan to always run both steps anyway. Obviously, the precise extent of testing that ought to be integrated into a routine build will vary from one package to the next. I say this should be left to the discretion of each package maintainer. I see no advantage whatever from instituting a general policy that "build and test must be separate". regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
