On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 09:25:11AM +0200, Alex Riesen wrote: > > Is this intended as a serious submission for inclusion? > > Not yet. AFAICS, test-date is never used in our test suite. No, it isn't, but I think the point of this is to change that. So it is useless without an extra patch to the test suite. I'll try to put something together. > Right, that's because I'm not sure myself. Frankly, I'm not > convinced we have to test every single thing. In my experience, > the bigger a test suite, the less are people inclined to use it > (including setting up automatic test runs). > > Jeff, Nicolas? Is this test enough? Are there any other code > paths you want to include in the test? I think this is a useful addition to the test suite. The bug David fixed was obvious, but it sat for a year because of poor test coverage. Linus fixed several approxidate bugs recently. The approxidate code is notoriously temperamental, so it is a good thing to be checking for regressions. And I don't think our test suite is nearly big enough to start worrying about getting people not to use it. Without CVS and SVN tests, I can run it on 3-year-old hardware in less than a minute. Either you bother to run it or not, but I doubt that adding one new test script is going to break the bank. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html