On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:43:18PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 12:10 +0200, Fabiano FidĂȘncio wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:11 AM Pavel Hrdina <phrdina(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Instead of removing the syntax-check job we can keep it if we use
> > 'suite' labels for our tests in a way that we would use
'syntax' label
> > for syntax-check tests and 'unit' label for unit tests.
> >
> > That way the syntax-check job will call
> >
> > `meson test --suite syntax`
> >
> > and check job will call
> >
> > `meson test --suite unit`
>
> Personally, I don't see a valid point on keeping the job.
Same here. Dan was arguing for keeping it, however. I wonder if he
changed his mind in the meantime...
I'd prefer separate, but I'm not going to block it if everyone else things
it is better to have a single job.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|