From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hj0gy-0006fL-6v for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 22:19:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l41MIW2i002753; Tue, 1 May 2007 22:18:32 GMT Received: from ppsw-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-2.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l41MGXH8000473 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 22:16:33 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:38778 helo=maya) by ppsw-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.152]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1Hj0db-0002mv-9f (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 01 May 2007 23:16:00 +0100 Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 23:31:11 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] tests Message-ID: <20070501233111.5fd54b7b@maya> In-Reply-To: <4637B69E.6010200@gentoo.org> References: <200705011508.57220.peper@gentoo.org> <20070501171828.GL10636@kfk4ever.com> <20070501183522.7531c0c9@snowflake> <20070501195336.GA23900@kfk4ever.com> <4637B69E.6010200@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.7.2 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: 80a09af7-53b1-4fdf-948b-0d90ef71ba38 X-Archives-Hash: a03241b959c51f7a0be4f654851f813d On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:52:30 -0700 Josh Saddler wrote: > anyway, on the subject of tests...as others have covered the *first* > time this was discussed on the lists, mandatory tests being run every > time the user installs a package? no. oh hell no. we don't seem to do > that much with the packages in our tree now, do we? Care to turn that into a reasoned argument rather than what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list