From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu Aug 29 23:36:17 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B497DE2A7F; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:36:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f44.google.com (mail-io1-f44.google.com [209.85.166.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46KJsD1Rflz4KDy; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:36:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-f44.google.com with SMTP id j5so10394996ioj.8; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:36:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ua4zHBQZ8l/telU2EihwTZk/176grRwgom62ZiitBoM=; b=QgMYZy0lLoHhNqJmpdUCMCKpoT7UCMpohCHDKkIVvskY21DExp/HhBzOWsGjLS1Hnx vFgqnbLgE4i+Wtf54WibFxtKs1SVYzM8BIQPrZwTc1XhPmc7XQtf2vyM1amANllUmIBR UEhNF+M6irPcNJJEz1HVe7JwoMb0EKD3nmlOB57GpAARlR3w7GqvBzTUb7/mwC4Bk+Xv jM2YOjWPYn1MEZtw/nR3jvJ8q1bxei3VrUAMQiIdbPa6yX3krzzuPzaGKNtYxBfV6bhG jlBWOkIpL0jcE/aDClP1x8/s7sxNuQwqj+NLudzHWxCVeHRZIdtmTQfbbNDXl6rkPAST j9rQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWO53v7g+734sk5SnxCy9gm0tnpt5FzYgefnE/vVFNxMzPOYjy9 qif2PlAla5qULtRAxPDZVsb+4HAxwPU7NnHX2hs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyIya+E6staTKdL0E9iswUIHwjX0ue+iYsK6/O1VQFGcLqT7fJ/JyYx9r+rdZYDTMGdj1rwFFymq2XTS/lYRfI= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9b96:: with SMTP id r22mr1006520iom.17.1567121775027; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:36:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190829114057.GZ71821@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20190829114057.GZ71821@kib.kiev.ua> From: Ed Maste Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:35:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy To: Konstantin Belousov Cc: Li-Wen Hsu , FreeBSD Hackers , fcp@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46KJsD1Rflz4KDy X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.00 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.991,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[44.166.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.01)[ip: (-4.31), ipnet: 209.85.128.0/17(-3.34), asn: 15169(-2.32), country: US(-0.05)]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:36:17 -0000 On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 07:41, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > More, I know that tests are of very low quality, which means that > brokeness of the tests is not an indicator of anything until root cause > is identified. "Low quality" needs clarification here. I can think of many attributes of a test that might lead someone to claim tests are low quality: - The test result is not consistent (e.g., a "flaky test") - The test does not actually test what it claims to - The test does as it claims, but there is no value in the result - Test coverage overall is insufficient (i.e., not an issue with a specific test) - The test has excessive requirements (run time, memory usage, etc.) - The test is difficult to maintain