Thread: installcheck-parallel

I see that the installcheck-parallel was not added to the top level 
Makefile and Gnumakefile.in when it was added as a regression test 
target back in the 8.0 cycle. Is there any objection to my adding it now 
so that it is treated the same as the other regression test targets? If 
so, should I add it just to HEAD, or backpatch it to 8.0 and 8.1?  
(Reasoning: I got confused for a few seconds and thought maybe I had 
mistyped the target name, before I realised what was wrong, but others 
less familiar than I am with the testing structure might well get rather 
more confused.)

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I see that the installcheck-parallel was not added to the top level 
> Makefile and Gnumakefile.in when it was added as a regression test 
> target back in the 8.0 cycle. Is there any objection to my adding it 
> now so that it is treated the same as the other regression test 
> targets? If so, should I add it just to HEAD, or backpatch it to 8.0 
> and 8.1?  (Reasoning: I got confused for a few seconds and thought 
> maybe I had mistyped the target name, before I realised what was 
> wrong, but others less familiar than I am with the testing structure 
> might well get rather more confused.)
>

I didn't get any response to this so I'm going to add this and back port 
it, since the risk factor is pretty well zero, and I suspect it was just 
an inadvertent omission a couple of years ago.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> > I see that the installcheck-parallel was not added to the top level 
> > Makefile and Gnumakefile.in when it was added as a regression test 
> > target back in the 8.0 cycle. Is there any objection to my adding it 
> > now so that it is treated the same as the other regression test 
> > targets? If so, should I add it just to HEAD, or backpatch it to 8.0 
> > and 8.1?  (Reasoning: I got confused for a few seconds and thought 
> > maybe I had mistyped the target name, before I realised what was 
> > wrong, but others less familiar than I am with the testing structure 
> > might well get rather more confused.)
> >
> 
> I didn't get any response to this so I'm going to add this and back port 
> it, since the risk factor is pretty well zero, and I suspect it was just 
> an inadvertent omission a couple of years ago.

Agreed.

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +