Re: Running unit test by make <module>

On 12.11.2017 21:03, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 07:00:33PM +0100, Zolnai Tamás wrote:
> > Independently from the actual question, which is still unanswered, 
>
> If the question is "why do we have this status quo?" the answer is "because it
> is result of some dozen discussions between developers (mostly on the ESC).".
> ~Every argument has already been made and I assume most are also preserved for
> eternity in the ESC minutes.

> > it's always a pleasure to see how "old" developers - living in a symbiosis
> > with the code - are worrying about the status quo.
>
> If you assume the status quo to be my personal best preference, I can assure you
> that is not the case. If you would dig through the six years of debate on ESC,
> you will even find that I was supporting tests to only be run on "make check"
> (to be consistent with autotools). That was not going to be due to this thing
> called "compromise".

see also the most recent attempt to consolidate this:

https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/31075/
https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/31081/

sadly failed because the "make check" took measurably longer...

-- 
DDJ: You've mentioned Edsger Dijkstra. What do you think of his work?
DK:  His great strength is that he is uncompromising. It would make
     him physically ill to think of programming in C++.