On 2013-05-23, at 10:12, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:

>
> Am 23.05.2013 um 09:53 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu>:
>
>> Hmm, there are different views possible on this.
>>
> Absolutely!
>
>> We should never give up the possibility of building/constructing really small images. There has been massive work done on modularisation, unloading and stripping. Let's keep that option/route open.
>>
> That's my only point. Having tests packaged separately just opens the possibility to make things smaller.
>
>> I personally doubt how much difference tests actually make compared to other stuff, but that does not mean that they should no longer be unloadable.
>>
> agreed.
>
>> I stopped trying to minimise production images, because it is not worth the trouble: it is a lot of work, memory is relatively cheap and I need the tools to remain present, just in case I want to debug. Even running tests is a kind of debugging and/or quality control: a way to confirm that the production image is (still) working OK. This is all useful and a small price to pay, IMHO.
>>
> That is the funny part in this discussion. I stopped minimizing them as well. On most images I use RFB and like to have the full fledge installation being present. I stopped even to use cleanUpForProduction because it removes SUnit. I hook up SUnit to rest handlers and trigger them from the outside to do runtime sanity checks, e.g. used by monit.

so that means nobody *actually* loads code without tests? :D (evil laugh).