Re: release-candidate/0.6

Subject: Re: release-candidate/0.6

Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:09:08 +0200

To: Austin Clements

Cc: Notmuch Mail

From: Pieter Praet

On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:18:48 -0400, Austin Clements <> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Pieter Praet <> wrote:
> > The atomicity tests were failing here because I didn't have GDB
> > installed, so I've added it as a prereq.
> Sorry, I've had a patch to address that sitting around, but hadn't
> sent it out (and I only fixed that one test).  I would suggest a
> somewhat gentler approach than "error", though:
> if test_expect_success "prereq: gdb is present" "which gdb"; then
>     test_set_prereq GDB
> fi
> (Plus the two test-lib patches I just sent:
> and
> "error" has the disadvantage that it doesn't get counted as a failed
> test in the final tally (because, indeed, it's not a failed test) and
> also that it immediately terminates the test script so it's not
> actually using the prereq system (which is fine for the atomicity test
> since all of the test cases depend on GDB, but the pattern I'm
> proposing works for finer-grained prerequisites).  Plus, with the
> above approach, if you don't have a prerequisite, the final tally
> shows one failed test plus some number of skipped tests (and the total
> number of tests never changes), which I would argue is cleaner.

Much obliged for the correction!


[0] git://