Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:07:41 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: 7+ days of dogfood Message-ID: <20130211190741.379ee35c@X220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <88F312FE-E783-4C24-8964-BBDE4DE6653E@cederstrand.dk> References: <20130210000723.GA73630@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130210083010.7df5b997@X220.ovitrap.com> <256C7A7B-DFA7-4C0F-B389-AB10E0DA42D0@cederstrand.dk> <20130211063858.0375a6ed@X220.ovitrap.com> <88F312FE-E783-4C24-8964-BBDE4DE6653E@cederstrand.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Erik, On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:43:17 +0100 Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> wrote: => Den 11/02/2013 kl. 00.38 skrev Erich Dollansky > <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com>: > > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:57:01 +0100 > > Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> wrote: > > > >> And as long as there is no automatic can taster doing quality > >> assurance of the produced cans, then foul cans will go unnoticed > >> until a dog pukes all over the carpet :-) > >> > > Isn't this the idea of HEAD? > > It's certainly not the idea of HEAD that everyone should experience > the same bugs, compile errors, runtime errors and even have old bugs > pop up again repeatedly. It may be the consequence of running HEAD, > but certainly not the idea. > ok, I agree that developers could react faster some times. But, isn't it more important that the errors are caught at all? > >> For this to change, we really need to catch up on years of neglect > >> in e.g. src/tools/regression/. I really applaud the people doing > >> the thankless job of changing this. > >> > > I do not believe that this all can be automated. > > I'm not saying that testing is all-or-nothing. OS testing is not > easy, and many tests are impractical or expensive if they require > real hardware in complicated setups. How do you reliably test an IEEE > 802.11s mesh implementation? Or scheduling on huge servers that are > too expensive to purchase? I think that is one of the reasons that > FreeBSD has not caught up on automated testing and continuous > integration. But regression tests are useful even though they don't > give 100% code coverage. Currently, you can't even "make test" in > src/tools/regression/ and run the tests that are there. Apart from > the compile-tests done by the tinderboxes, I'm not aware of any > coordinated effort to systematically do runtime or even performance > testing of FreeBSD. > So, the best is still if people like me are eating dog food and start complaining? Do not get me wrong here. I do not complain about the fact that there might be an error, I want to help poin-point the error with my complaint. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130211190741.379ee35c>