From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 08:01:44 GMT
Subject: Re: 1.7.2 cycle will open soon
Message-ID: <20100506080144.GA25876@progeny.tock>
In-Reply-To: <4BE26A83.4010708@viscovery.net>

Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 5/6/2010 8:44, schrieb Jonathan Nieder:
>>  test_when_finished () {
>> 	test_cleanup="$* && $test_cleanup"
>>  }
>
> I'm wondering why you want this test_cleanup at all?
> 
> Is it so that subsequent tests can succeed even if an earlier test failed
> before its regular cleanup?

Yes.  In some cases (permissions-related), if a test fails, even a
‘make clean’ afterwards fails.

> I don't see what this buys you. If a test case uncovers a regression, you
> got to fix it - who cares how many later tests fail or not? Once you are
> finished with your change, all tests will pass anyway (including their
> regular cleanups).

Why do we support the non --immediate mode at all, then?  Just like it can
be easier to understand the result when a compile uncovers more than one
error, it can help in debugging to see which later tests were broken.

If there is a consensus that this is not worth it, I am fine with
that, though.  The current status is that each test where this matters
does things its own way.

Jonathan