From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 11 13:36:18 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169B2158 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:36:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk) Received: from csmtp2.one.com (csmtp2.one.com [91.198.169.22]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D9899A for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:36:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [217.157.7.221]) by csmtp2.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1ABB830764CC; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Subject: Re: 7+ days of dogfood From: Erik Cederstrand In-Reply-To: <20130211190741.379ee35c@X220.ovitrap.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:36:10 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: 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> <20130211190741.379ee35c@X220.ovitrap.com> To: Erich Dollansky X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steve Kargl X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:36:18 -0000 Den 11/02/2013 kl. 13.07 skrev Erich Dollansky = : > ok, I agree that developers could react faster some times. But, isn't > it more important that the errors are caught at all? Yes. As long as there is no alternative, the best motivation to fix a = bug is when you just spent 20 minutes recovering your laptop from a = crash. I just believe more people would be motivated to run CURRENT if there = was at least some basic runtime resting. Just like the tinderboxes save = developer CPU cycles by saying "Don't bother with this revision, it = doesn't compile", I think runtime tests would save real developer time = by saying "Don't bother with this revision, it doesn't boot" or "Don't = bother with this revision, gcc can't compile hello-world.cpp". Which = doesn't imply that automated testing would catch all errors. > So, the best is still if people like me are eating dog food and start > complaining? >=20 > 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. As I started out, I admire the work you and others are doing by running = CURRENT and reporting and fixing errors. At the same time, I look to = e.g. LLVM and their "no commit without a regression test" goal and think = we could do way better :-) Erik=