From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tino Calancha Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#25618: 25.1.91; More precise limit for tagging expensive tests Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 02:54:03 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: References: <87inoqqdgr.fsf@calancha-pc> <83d1ex99yh.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486230915 18781 195.159.176.226 (4 Feb 2017 17:55:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:55:15 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Cc: 25618@debbugs.gnu.org, Tino Calancha To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 04 18:55:11 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4YG-0004W1-Sz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 18:55:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40449 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4YJ-0006go-CY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:55:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46093) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4YD-0006fV-EF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:55:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4YA-0005j4-Bu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:55:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:58070) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4YA-0005j0-82 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4YA-0003qv-0p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:55:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Tino Calancha Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:55:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 25618 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 25618-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B25618.148623085414747 (code B ref 25618); Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:55:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 25618) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Feb 2017 17:54:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56269 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4XN-0003pn-Qx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:54:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:36649) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ca4XM-0003pZ-JJ for 25618@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 12:54:12 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pf0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 189so13434544pfu.3 for <25618@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:54:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=a6q5SyDbbicgLAOwWxCwdIXHVhW9X3NQiUAd88C/E3E=; b=hww1nJ6YYd+ef5NsNgY01bvUBMSPBKaPpDDXR263pZ76rO2Ij5e9CHxTCHp+epP+K+ NAp9fhpbsM6dsFWkglOp5V/gSs5YKp58A7SN+E4t5MMwAt/055Y/JXuBdpHmd8DXZDe1 cMaEgSx4xYYuSXnbeFJIVl8L53bCzKJjutPbk28tBUB3VUszN9ioOhW5Tsx9rDaA1YqM hXE1y44u0NajKqya0N3dEJmUHuypDsqxjPN8KExii5h5HmNV/x4yb7pRtvjAi0yMtg+y 4Ja7LfZ2N3jTWps+46d8o27lp3i139BAuV+vUGs5IGJSe12HNWIzCswTS996+GPzH/0X dwLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=a6q5SyDbbicgLAOwWxCwdIXHVhW9X3NQiUAd88C/E3E=; b=ElJjDleMjfbgCOWuMikN00k+r+oGSL+35E7PlV4pTHrVa6K9OZq9JDcor4y5/QjM7f l5KxuH/j+rsY1vQ5oLkVyioxglO8jJ0c40FMv9VzwmeYTkpsLSuRIaWP1tvQ8M/M28SX GUaV2f2ddHGwfnrMm6RXdlQQfC+8Yipoj3Uiz+6SJCRtzRCzoUezFb4Kpp0yCgbZ97EP 13EAj2LggDl6pzCZY76nTQX4RJzBwoW/92aLrVDGyVihE02grFYnVLdrfOMyk4/i/XVF XGrT06g7Te2JrEeh2SpSZ+fZkUDmDuxxhJa53hLGdcW1C/5eueDHayxrQSoUNy3BTgiG TCuA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL2xVLDsRCr98KIC8jhEipeUqdynDH2SprRbvrSmE5X0Qo0vw6a6ObDkBd0jqqw0Q== X-Received: by 10.84.241.1 with SMTP id a1mr4862966pll.65.1486230846546; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:54:06 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from calancha-pc (104.81.147.124.dy.bbexcite.jp. [124.147.81.104]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r17sm77163902pgg.19.2017.02.04.09.54.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:54:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-From: Tino Calancha X-X-Sender: calancha@calancha-pc In-Reply-To: <83d1ex99yh.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:128958 Archived-At: On Sat, 4 Feb 2017, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Tino Calancha >> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 22:42:44 +0900 >> >> >> Prefer set a numeric limit of seconds than using the word 'few'. >> >> For instance, in my box the test `cl-seq-test-bug24264' in >> test/lisp/emacs-lisp/cl-seq-tests.el >> takes 7 s. >> With an explicit numeric threshold is easier to decide whether this test >> must be tagged as expensive or not. >> >> In following patch i define a few as 2-3 seconds. Other people might >> prefer 4-5 or even higher. >> Please, suggest a proper value to consider a test as expensive. > > I think 2-3 sec is negligible, and 7 sec is not long enough to annoy. > 10 sec or more is beginning to sound like it comes close to "too > long", and 20 sec is definitely too long. Thank you. Now is clear. Are you OK with keep the sentence as it is now? I mean, keep: 'some few seconds'.