| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: how to handle missing "prove" |
| Date: | 2014-11-02 15:05:47 |
| Message-ID: | 5456484B.3080602@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/30/14 9:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Looks generally reasonable, but I thought you were planning to choose a
> different option name?
Yeah, but I couldn't think of a better one. (Anything involving,
"enable-perl-..." would have been confusing with regard to PL/Perl.)
> One minor nitpick: perhaps the --help description of the option should
> read
>
> + --enable-tap-tests enable TAP tests (requires Perl and IPC::Run)
>
> because in practice it'll be much more likely that people will be missing
> IPC::Run than that they'll be missing Perl altogether.
Done.
> Also, shouldn't we have it fail rather than just skipping tests if
> IPC::Run is missing?
Done.
I was holding back on that pending the discussion on IPC::Cmd, but I
don't think that will happen anytime soon.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-11-02 15:07:39 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2014-11-02 15:01:46 | Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices |