Skip to content

Conversation

@bagder
Copy link
Member

@bagder bagder commented May 4, 2017

... instead of numerical order.

It might be more sensible to catch errors earlier instead of always running them sequentially.

@mention-bot
Copy link

@bagder, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @dfandrich and @yangtse to be potential reviewers.

@bagder bagder closed this in 067b8f2 May 4, 2017
@bagder bagder deleted the bagder/runtests-random-order branch May 4, 2017 21:40
@dfandrich
Copy link
Contributor

How about calling the option -R to match sort's option to do the same? -o isn't very mnemonic.

@bagder
Copy link
Member Author

bagder commented May 5, 2017

A good idea! I couldn't think of good letter so I just picked an unused one, but -R sounds better. I have hope that I will use this locally for a while going forward and if proven successful, I might suggest that we switch this on by default and then we might want the option to instead negative the randomness...

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 14, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants