reducing the version_info shown by test runs

[Martin Pool]

On 7/16/07, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 11:45 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> > I think the subject line is a bit over the top.
>
> Spew is a colloquialism here, and in erms of testing I think it is ugly.
> Probably the title was more emotive than needed - it was largely
> surprise at seeing a good third of my screen realestate getting trampled
> on. Do you object to a patch to disable it via an option (so I at least
> can get that space back)?

I think you are an extreme case because you normally(?) run in a
window half the height of a 12in screen and may never make mistakes
about what code you're trying to test.  I don't think we need an
option.

I wanted to show the bzr version and python version in the header.
The laziest way to do this was by calling show_version, but it could
easily fit on the two lines we already use.  ::

  testing /home/mbp/bzr/trunk/bzr 0.19dev python-2.5.1 unix
  bzrlib /home/.....

I had half an eye on a buildbot or pqm setup where it would not
necessarily be easy to go and run --version, and so getting the
critical data in every run is useful.

We can probably squeeze some more space out of the test output too, if
that is desirable, by removing the blanks and showing the ultimate
success/failure message where the progress bar is.

The thing that actually bothers me far more, and that uses a lot more
screen space, is that in many cases the fatal exception is shown
twice, once in the log and once by the test runner.

> I don't know that making it more obvious is important here: I mean we
> don't make it more obvious when you run other commands e.g. branch, or
> plugins.

I don't think we should show the version there -- it is not germane,
as it is for testing -- but I think we probably should be more
communicative about what is being pushed where.

> In terms of it being reviewed here, our review process has a hole in it
> in some regards - and I think that hole is fine, but it does mean that
> sometimes people will be unhappy with what goes in. The hole is that we
> require two +1's, and no -1's, but theres no minimum window on things
> being done, which means that there is potentially a very limited time
> window to say '-1' or even '-0' (which is what I am on this - I don't
> think its sooo ugly as to do -1),

It's totally fine to reverse things once we have experience with them.
 I wrote it on a 24in screen so didn't even think about the size being
a problem.

-- 
Martin