Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:01:17 +0800 From: Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> To: Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> Cc: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org>, fcp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy Message-ID: <CAOfEmZgEbT7ni80vWehHm%2B4oPyH3m%2Brb0M_VyxHmNM3rkhyG1Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <A837EF78-DC69-4B52-A7D9-0363302A48FA@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAKBkRUwKKPKwRvUs00ja0%2BG9vCBB1pKhv6zBS-F-hb=pqMzSxQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190829114057.GZ71821@kib.kiev.ua> <28934eb780342605090bf365ac3a2e0d522256f5.camel@freebsd.org> <A837EF78-DC69-4B52-A7D9-0363302A48FA@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Em qui, 29 de ago de 2019 =C3=A0s 22:54, Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> escreveu: > On 29 Aug 2019, at 16:42, Ian Lepore wrote: > > (And I don't think breaking a test counts as > > breaking the build.) > > > I fundamentally disagree on this point. A test failure is, just like a > compiler warning, a precious gift that should not be ignored. > The more distance (both in terms of time, and in terms of the people > involved) there is between a bug being introduced and it being detected > the harder it is to fix it. Test accelerate detection of bugs. If we do > not take test failures seriously (i.e. as an indication something is > wrong and should be fixed) the tests will inevitable become useless in > one of two ways: we=E2=80=99ll either disable failing tests (which is wha= t we > tend to do now) reducing test coverage or we=E2=80=99ll have a test suite= with > many failures in it, which makes it useless as well. (As with compiler > warnings, the best way to keep them under control is to consider them to > be fatal errors.) > Could you elaborate where is the "fundamentally" you disagree? Where is the fundament? You guys are introducing something new, yes everybody knows about test, it is year 2019, but nobody can come with new rules tha in hours we gonna revert if you "dare to don't fix it". Sorry, this is not how people test software and fix it. > > In either scenario we end up reducing test coverage, which means we=E2=80= =99re > going to push more bugs towards users. > > > I totally agree. This is an overly-bureaucratic solution in search of > > a problem. > > > > If this needs to be addressed at all (and I'm not sure it does), then > > another sentence or two in bullet item 10 in section 18.1 [*] of the > > committer's guide should be enough. And even then it needn't be > > overly-formal and should just mention that if a commit does break the > > build the committer is expected to be responsive to that problem and > > the commit might get reverted if they're unresponsive. I don't think > > we need schedules. > > > I do feel that=E2=80=99s a better argument. We=E2=80=99ve always had a po= licy of > reverting on request (AIUI), so this is more or less trying to be a > strong restatement of that, more than a fundamental shift in policy. > We don't have a policy to revert commit, actually revert commit is something bad, it is kind of punishment, I have been there, nobody wants to be there. Stop to push this non-sense argument. > > Best regards, > Kristof > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " > --=20 --=20 Marcelo Araujo (__)araujo@FreeBSD.org \\\'',)http://www.FreeBSD.org <http://www.freebsd.org/>; \/ \ ^ Power To Server. .\. /_)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfEmZgEbT7ni80vWehHm%2B4oPyH3m%2Brb0M_VyxHmNM3rkhyG1Q>