On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 11:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
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.
Since me and Fabiano are for having a single job, Pavel is okay with
either solution and you would prefer separate jobs but don't feel
strongly enough about that to NACK the other solution, let's slap a
Reviewed-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna(a)redhat.com>
on this bad boy and move on :)
Fabiano, let me know when it's a good time to push the patch and
apply the changes.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization