3 ms·
But why not test? If we don't expect compatibility to break, then it will be little extra effort surely?
by lambda_garden 3y ago
But why not test? If we don't expect compatibility to break, then it will be little extra effort surely?
- martinky24 3y agoThis is very naive.
- malcolmgreaves 3y agoIf you were in this situation yourself, what would you do if you saw a test failure? Is it different from what you'd do if you found it to be a success? If you put it into a tier of support that states "I won't be proactively maintaining compatibility and fixing issues here", then your answer is "nothing." A failing test won't spur you to action, because of the support level. So if the test result doesn't change your behavior, why run the test in the first place?
- kibwen 3y agoCI jobs cost money, and every new target has a multiplicative effect on the number of job configurations that need running.
- Tuna-Fish 3y agoIt's quite a lot of extra effort. The Rust test job is to compile every single public open-source package on the crates.io registry. This is an amazing way to test. But it's also expensive, because that actually takes a lot of machine time.