From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>
To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test: run emacs inside tmux if screen is not available
In-Reply-To: <87d3h5ul7k.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <1309496122-4965-2-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
	<1311165396-12268-1-git-send-email-schnouki@schnouki.net>
	<87d3h5ul7k.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5-353-gb44d56e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:28:38 -0700
Message-ID: <87k4bc275l.fsf@servo.factory.finestructure.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:37:35 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:36:36 +0200, Thomas Jost <schnouki@schnouki.net> w=
rote:
> > Before this change, the test suite reported many failed tests on machin=
es where
> > screen is not installed (which is the case of many *BSD systems). This =
patch
> > makes the test suite try to use tmux, another terminal multiplexer, if =
screen is
> > not available.
>=20
> This is a nice improvement.  But I think we should make it even better :)
> There are more terminal emulators besides screen and tmux (dtach comes
> to mind).  We need a more general mechanism for trying them.  There
> should be a list of commands for running terminal emulators in the order
> of preference (I think that is dtach, tmux, screen), and we should try
> each one in a loop (this would also avoid repeating the long emacs
> command).

Hi, guys.  I suppose you can go down this route if you want, but I worry
that it just adds a lot of extra code to the test suite that will
ultimately make it less robust.  What's wrong with just depending on
screen for the tests?  I'm sure screen is available on every operating
system that we currently support.

It makes me wary that we would be starting a precedent for making a
bunch of conditionals for all of the possible alternative tools we use
in the test suite.  Maybe that's an overblown concern, though.

jamie.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=rVbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--