From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 11 12:07:47 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DEF99B8 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:07:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com) Received: from alogt.com (alogt.com [69.36.191.58]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F8D29B for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:07:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alogt.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=cp3NsB3pXLQYw5ruhR2VPWh9qxLLA2nEXzFpoyawiE0=; b=MCtD91j0FY6Mlv6WWQguAeT/r6qDlQaCKx9aw7/iC3ezCmPE/PnWOsS+9oBj5xHQqqUM785tH+adNAzd2LYj1DKWPkQdrxf/NLI3VL4jvhuqU8wnnhl6Oya2KaAzqily; Received: from [122.129.203.50] (port=37620 helo=X220.ovitrap.com) by sl-508-2.slc.westdc.net with esmtpsa (SSLv3:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1U4sAi-001HYQ-UU; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:07:46 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:07:41 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky To: Erik Cederstrand 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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sl-508-2.slc.westdc.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - alogt.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sl-508-2.slc.westdc.net: authenticated_id: erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: 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 12:07:47 -0000 Hi Erik, On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:43:17 +0100 Erik Cederstrand wrote: => Den 11/02/2013 kl. 00.38 skrev Erich Dollansky > : > > > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:57:01 +0100 > > Erik Cederstrand 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