Message251445
"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 20:18:59 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, jkloth, ezio.melotti, r.david.murray, berker.peksag, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka |
2015-09-23 20:18:59 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1443039539.0.0.256643727229.issue25220@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2015-09-23 20:18:58 | vstinner | link | issue25220 messages |
2015-09-23 20:18:58 | vstinner | create | |
|