[TIP] including (or not) tests within your package

[Olemis Lang]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Michael Foord
<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 13:14, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Fernando Perez<fperez.net at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Ben Finney<ben+python at benfinney.id.au>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fernando Perez<fperez.net at gmail.com>  writes:
>>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>
>>> Ultimately all I can say is that I have *extensive, real-world*
>>> evidence of this approach having worked *fantastically* well for
>>> ipython, numpy, scipy, nipy.*, etc over the last few years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The same can be stated by people that don't include tests in packages
>
> I get the feeling that Olemis won't be satisfied until we all admit that he
> is correct and that everyone else's experiences and preferences are
> invalid...
>

That's probably because you skipped the part when I said «I don't do
it nowadays» or «I agree with Andrew» . In the search for answers I'm
just trying to find logic, valid arguments & similar, real & very
common scenarios . Without debate reasoning sleeps . Probably  some
might think that I'm trying to convince anybody , and that's not
correct . I'm just saying that there's no major reason for including
tests in packages , and that all the arguments provided don't imply
that distributing tests together with code is *the way* nor even *the
right way* to package Py apps . You all (I) can do whatever you (I)
want .

-- 
Regards,

Olemis.

Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/

Featured article: