[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Test failures
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:36:04PM +0200, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > Fair enough. But most of the failures would be catched if developers would
> > actually run the tests before committing.
> Only if every developer ran every test before every commit, on, at least,
> every Tier I platform.
That is just not true. The vast majority of failures would be caught
by running the tests on one platform - any platform.
> And, unfortunately, I suspect that is a burden which would lead many
> developers to simply not commit. We're already asking developers to
> do full system builds, which take the best part of an hour; now
> you'd be asking them to maintain either a fully up-to-date VM for
> each Tier I platform, or a private copy of an automated framework to
> compile-install-test on such VMs.
No one has asked for changes to be tested on every Tier I platform.
The problem is not changes that work on one platform but fail on
another, it's changes that have not been tested _at all_. Including
ones that don't even compile.
> Usually most developers (even I) don't screw up. This is NetBSD-current,
> not a release branch, and so I believe some amount of "screw up and fix
> it later" is OK if it greatly speeds development.
It may speed development for the person doing it, but it slows
development for everyone else. That's unfair, and I think the net
impact on the project is negative.
Andreas Gustafsson, gson%gson.org@localhost
Main Index |
Thread Index |