On Fri, 2023-11-03 at 16:33 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 01:26:41PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > Thomas Haller <thaller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Thanks for sending an initial empty skeleton. > > > > > There are new new make targets: > > > > > > - "build-all" > > > - "check" (runs "normal" tests, like unit tests and > > > "tools/check-tree.sh"). > > > - "check-more" (runs extra tests, like "tests/build") > > > - "check-all" (runs "check" + "check-more") > > > - "check-local" (a subset of "check") > > > - "check-TESTS" (the unit tests) > > > > "check-unit" perhaps? TESTS isn't very descriptive. Also, > > why CAPS? If this is some pre-established standard, then maybe just > > document that in the commit changelog. > > > > Please don't do anything yet and wait for more comments, but > > I would prefer 'make check' to run all tests that we have. > > We had a few tests that have been shown to be unstable. > > I just would like that I don't hit this when making the release and > hold back a release because a test fails occasionally. > > If we go for `make check' then all test runs must be reliable. > Agree. Tests must be reliable and `make distcheck/check` usable! Unstable tests must be fixed. It's a never-ending fight to keep the testsuite passing well enough. ATM, the reliability is not great, but not terrible either. Seems manageable to me. Thomas
