From owner-freebsd-testing@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 6 15:01:51 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3897D2DE; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-x22c.google.com (mail-pd0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BB2F3A; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:01:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f172.google.com with SMTP id p10so2641407pdj.17 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 07:01:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=xvfpRUgTcmLmRljcdJLbNJXxIzTucL30UAN7NvTRDNo=; b=dMxGDKifg9bsk9aUAlvzxO8riIkchLnM0zHuASfmALxR7r9GnoOsWGXT4l/T+Pvj0L t4YkD0Bg8hCq+EnQQtIM07BlqIuUftbKlcp1XedaoHRgFSirin7cOpUOn8xG9fvV3Bd1 Fj24z1jN88Secfhh2NS2u2ptwYvgQNimirP54INe65qU3MwDJMxHYh//vEv1vVVI7V3C DXiBumSOKn3KfnPPL+xPOQTvt9F6YpvA9F36JudyOmUTS+GejXdrLMA6yV+f4vUWPlXG SvlaQL3Yi0wtVBXV5pz34XSlkcWsBhBVVHL8opU99yEI0t59UFm2DDpnS/jIC8sPMyBu pzBA== X-Received: by 10.68.172.37 with SMTP id az5mr14755697pbc.139.1394118110158; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 07:01:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.20.11] (c-24-17-226-153.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [24.17.226.153]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vf7sm20746536pbc.5.2014.03.06.07.01.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Mar 2014 07:01:49 -0800 (PST) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <43135FE5-5A9D-4AD5-B65F-E6FC20B9E366@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B651) From: Garrett Cooper Subject: Re: Should we MFC tests into stable/10? Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:01:47 -0800 To: Julio Merino Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Testing on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:01:51 -0000 > On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:26, Julio Merino wrote: >=20 > Hello all, >=20 > Keeping the testing infrastructure in sync between current and > stable/10 is, in my opinion, a worthy goal. For that reason, I have > (finally) pulled up a bunch of related pending changes into the branch > today and will continue to do so for upcoming improvements. >=20 > However, I would like to gather your opinion on what to do about the > tests themselves. >=20 > Do you think it's worth keeping the tests between current and > stable/10 in sync wherever possible? Because we have barely just > started adding tests, this will certainly involve quite a bit of churn > in MFCs -- but that's probably not a big deal. The tricky^Winteresting > cases will come when tests start failing in only one of the two > branches :-P >=20 > My opinion is now leaning towards merging everything where it makes > sense. What's yours? You're probably going to run into similar problems that devs run into when M= FCing code. It depends on whether or not the tests require a specific piece of build/tes= t infrastructure, and whether or not the tests exercise a new feature or fix= /change behavior. The former case is trickier as there will be breaking points for things in t= he future, but the latter case is pretty straightforward (devs should be mer= ging tests back with code changes for new features/behavior). I vote yes for stable/10 now, but I would be wary of future merges as head a= nd stable/(head-1) diverge, and similarly stable/(head-2).=