This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author vstinner
Recipients berker.peksag, ezio.melotti, jkloth, martin.panter, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2015-09-23.20:18:58
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
"This may be opening a can of worms, but I wonder if what we should really do is re-engineer regrtest from the ground up,"

It's not a full reengineering. My patch takes the current code and split it into smaller files. It's not a new implementation or anything like that.

"keeping the existing regrtest around until we are satisfied with its replacement..."

why are you saying "replacement"? Replaced by what?

"(I've used --single, but it's been a long time, and I think it may have only been when I was testing regrtest after modifying it...)"

You can propose to remove this option if you think that it's useless. I don't want to touch options, I don't know how regrtest is used, and regrtest works right? (If it works, don't touch it :-))

"I haven't looked at Victor's code to see if I like his re-engineering, but I'm really talking about starting the re-engineering from the API, and only then thinking about the code to implement it."

Sorry, but writing a new regrtest project is a full new project. Please open a new issue if you want to invest time on that.
Date User Action Args
2015-09-23 20:18:59vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, jkloth, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, berker.peksag, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka
2015-09-23 20:18:59vstinnersetmessageid: <>
2015-09-23 20:18:58vstinnerlinkissue25220 messages
2015-09-23 20:18:58vstinnercreate