(original) (raw)
I was going to argue, but it's not worth it. What you propose is fine.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 29 January 2018 at 14:43, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
\> So why can't you just run "make test" if that's faster?
I can (and do), but I also run it the other way if I need to pass
additional options. I'll then notice that I forgot -j0, ctrl-C out,
then run it again with -j0.
That's a minor irritation for me, but for folks that don't already
know about the -j0 option, they're more likely to just go "CPython's
test suite is annoyingly slow".
To provide a bit more detail on what I'd suggest we do:
\* "-j1" would explicitly turn off multiprocessing
\* "-j0" and "-jN" (N >= 2) would explicitly request multiprocessing
and error out if there's a conflicting flag
\* not setting the flag would be equivalent to "-j0" by default, but
"-j1" if a conflicting flag was set
The testing options that already explicitly conflict with the
multiprocessing option are:
\* -T (tracing)
\* -l (leak hunting)
"-j1" would likely also be a better default when the verbosity flags
are set (since the output is incredibly hard to read if you have
multiple verbose tests running in parallel).
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)