tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Experiments with npf on -current

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:55:09PM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> > interest of progress.Remember that this is -CURRENT, where things like
> > this are *supposed* to happen?
> As for me, I was glad Darren pointed this out. (In fact, I was quite 
> surprised when I read the followup acknowledging known buggy code living 
> in -current.)
> -current should not have broken code (note that current-users list now 
> has automated complaints on failures).
> We should strive for a higher standard. We should encourage and maybe 
> better require that we provide unit tests and/or behaviour tests with 
> commits too.  (Was there ever a public core announcement about when code 
> is added or bug fixed, that the developer should consider adding ATF 
> tests or regression tests for it?) (I'd like to extend this to include 
> security audit tests as applicable, documentation requirements, and peer 
> review requirements too.)
> We should suggest and even force that code known to be broken to be 
> reverted. (Well I think this is already true, but not happening?) (It 
> will be easier when we have a better revision control so many can work 
> easier on branches.)

It is this kind of short-term thinking that depresses me.  People do
not (typically) coordinate changes to the repo, and so there is
invariably some fallout, some things need to be fixed up, etc.  In
addition to that, I don't know anyone who has every single
architecture, let alone every single platform.  So some platforms go

I think it is completely unrealistic to expect -current to compile at
any one time, and I have been fixing some compilation issues in -current
on and off for a number of years now. Castigating people for checking
things in which are not 100% will have the marvellous effect of encouraging
people not to commit anything, rather than encouraging them to commit 100%
functional work.

Nowadays, we have people running automatic build tests, and the anita
runs are superb (thanks, gson!), along with some very enthusiastic
builders (bch and htodd, to name but two), and havard builds for some
of the more unorthodox architectures.  Which leads me to say:  I don't
know where you're coming from with this; in fact, I don't remember
your being active in this area, but I may have overlooked something
just recently.

So, yes, laudable aim - completely unworkable in practice.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index