I dunno - the majority of people are not going to want those tests most 
of the time.  The only people who really need them are people hacking on 
the core image itself, not users of it.

I don't feel that strongly, but every time something like this comes up 
it seems we eventually agree we're trying to *limit* the number of 
things being pushed out the update stream.  It's only a few clicks to 
install the tests and it's easily done for those who want them.  Those 
who don't are never going to run them anyway, so we don't gain anything 
by forcing them out there.

If we want to make them more accessible, we could add a menu item that 
gets the newest version of the test package from squeak map and runs it. 
  That would make it accessible for the cases where we want to say to 
someone on the list "could you try running the test suite to make sure 
nothing in your image is hooped".

If some people really want an update stream for the tests, why don't we 
use the update stream package to create a separate stream for the tests 
that those who care can track?

Julian


Doug Way wrote:

> 
> On Sunday, January 4, 2004, at 02:43 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
> 
>>
>> Am 04.01.2004 um 20:31 schrieb ducasse:
>>
>>> Hi andreas
>>>
>>> I was looking at your tests. I want them in the image :)
>>
>>
>> Hmm.... I was thinking about test in the image Vs. package.
>>
>> What I like aboyut my package is that I can add to it without
>> funneling all those changesets through the update process...
>> that's much faster.
>>
>> Can't we put the testsuite in the image the way other bigger
>> things (Celeste, SqueakMap and so on...) are handled?
> 
> 
> Yeah, we could do this.  This could be an in-image Basic package like 
> SUnit & SqueakMap.
> 
> I think it should probably be part of Basic and the alpha update stream, 
> and not just one of the separated Full packages (like Celeste, 
> Balloon3D, VMMaker, etc.).  This is a bit of extra effort on my part to 
> update occasionally in the update stream, but I think a tests package is 
> important enough to warrant this.
> 
> - Doug
> 
> 

-- 
julian at beta4.com
Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)