Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 09:09:53 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Marcelo Araujo <araujo@freebsd.org> Cc: Kristof Provost <kp@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: <CANCZdfo%2BsC=HBPjFZ_zTxYpA%2BZ-jbLwyG%2BT569wHoaeQ-X%2B2ig@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZhj5wL-i9CQoSpXV54%2BEeSrFnR0ay-9aGgUQrdkfqoC-A@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKBkRUwKKPKwRvUs00ja0%2BG9vCBB1pKhv6zBS-F-hb=pqMzSxQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190829114057.GZ71821@kib.kiev.ua> <412537DD-D98F-4B92-85F5-CB93CF33F281@FreeBSD.org> <20190829144228.GA71821@kib.kiev.ua> <B8B361D5-A41E-4A40-91CC-A7E170457257@FreeBSD.org> <CAOfEmZhj5wL-i9CQoSpXV54%2BEeSrFnR0ay-9aGgUQrdkfqoC-A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:09 AM Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> wrote: > Em qui, 29 de ago de 2019 =C3=A0s 23:03, Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> > escreveu: > > > On 29 Aug 2019, at 16:42, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 02:03:00PM +0200, Kristof Provost wrote: > > >> There are, somewhat regularly, commits which break functionality, or > > >> at > > >> the very least tests. > > >> The main objective of this policy proposal is to try to improve > > >> overall > > >> code quality by encouraging and empowering all committers to > > >> investigate > > >> and fix test failures. > > > But this policy does not encourage, if anything. > > > It gives a free ticket to revert, discouraging committers. > > > > > To provide a counterpoint here: my personal frustration right now is > > that I=E2=80=99ve spent a good bit of time adding tests for pf and fixi= ng bugs > > for it, only to see the tests having to be disabled because of unrelate= d > > (to pf) changes in the network stack. > > > > Either through lack of visibility, or lack of time, or because people > > assume pf tests failures must by definition be the responsibility of th= e > > pf maintainer, these failures have not been investigated by anyone othe= r > > than me, and I lack the time and subject matter expertise to fix them. > > > > I=E2=80=99m desperately afraid that if/when these bugs do get fixed we= =E2=80=99re > > going to discover that other things have broken in the mean time, and > > the tests are still going to fail, for different reasons. > > > > These are bugs. They=E2=80=99re the best case scenario for bug reports = even, > > because they come with a reproduction case built-in, and yet they=E2=80= =99re > > still not getting fixed. This too is discouraging. > > > > I=E2=80=99m open to alternative proposals for how to address that probl= em, but > > I don=E2=80=99t think that =E2=80=9Ccontinue on as we always have=E2=80= =9D is the correct > > > > OK, because of PF that is sort of deprecated on FreeBSD and it need some > new rules to make it workable, everybody else need to abdicate to some ne= w > rules. Yes, right you are!!!! > Let's take every opportunity to clarify community norms and turn it into a federal case. That's productive. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfo%2BsC=HBPjFZ_zTxYpA%2BZ-jbLwyG%2BT569wHoaeQ-X%2B2ig>