Author pitrou
Recipients aliles, asvetlov, brett.cannon, chris.jerdonek, docs@python, eli.bendersky, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, pitrou, r.david.murray, sbt, terry.reedy, v+python
Date 2012-09-17.14:38:44
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1347892695.3340.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
> I think we should be moving *away* from having special infrastructure
> in regrtest.  As much stuff as makes sense should be moved to
> unittest, and we've been slowly doing that.  Correspondingly, we
> should use Sphinx's native test facilities, not add special stuff to
> regrtest.  If Sphinx doesn't have the ability to run individual files,
> we should add that ability to Sphinx, not regrtest.  (Note: I
> personally do not use the ability recently added to regrtest to select
> unit tests from the command line, instead I use the unittest CLI
> directly, and I think that's the better way to do it.  IMO regrtest
> should be focused on running the test *suite*, not on running
> individual tests.)

The main reason to add it to regrtest was to allow special test modes
with it (such as -R or -F). (and, also, the unittest CLI's poor online
help makes it rather unusable for me :-)).
But I agree on the principle that unittest should be expanded to better
accomodate the needs of regrtest.
Date User Action Args
2012-09-17 14:38:45pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, brett.cannon, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, v+python, r.david.murray, eli.bendersky, asvetlov, chris.jerdonek, docs@python, sbt, aliles
2012-09-17 14:38:44pitroulinkissue15629 messages
2012-09-17 14:38:44pitroucreate