Re: Autotest: how stable?

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Ben Pfaff on 7/16/2009 10:19 PM:
> However, the warning about Autotest in the Autoconf manual is a
> little off-putting:
> 
>     This section describes a feature which is still stabilizing.
>     Although we believe that Autotest is useful as-is, this
>     documentation describes an interface which might change in
>     the future: do not depend upon Autotest without subscribing
>     to the Autoconf mailing lists.

That text has already been removed from what will become the 2.64 manual.

> 
> How concerned should I be in practice about Autotest changes?  Is
> there any chance that Autotest might be "frozen" or "stabilized"
> soon?

The implementation is still in some churn (for example, figuring out how
to make parallel testsuites portable to more shells).  But the basic API
is quite stable; projects like tar and bison have been using it for years,
and we have managed to avoid any backwards compatibility breaks in spite
of all the internal refactoring.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpgYqoACgkQ84KuGfSFAYDlBwCgtHSCya8IdowB63B0GtwF6Q1d
780An2GJKWHaoW82Nqs/hLW94rrYln5P
=CsvT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----