From owner-freebsd-current  Sun May 11 18:38:56 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA21765
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 1997 18:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA21758
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 11 May 1997 18:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id DAA11210; Mon, 12 May 1997 03:38:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 03:38:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199705120138.DAA11210@bitbox.follo.net>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
CC: perhaps@yes.no, terry@lambert.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: "Jordan K. Hubbard"'s message of Sun, 11 May 1997 16:30:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Regression tests (was Re: A 3.0-current SNAP building machine has been found!) 
References: <199705111709.TAA06018@bitbox.follo.net>
	<476.863393430@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> > Anyway; being able to do a 'make regress' on the entire FreeBSD
> > source tree and know all new code and a lot of old code got tested
> > would be a _good_ feeling.
> 
> It sure would be.  Pity it's such a hard problem to ensure that
> everything is still obeying all the right flags and still generating
> all the right output. :(

Depends a bit on whether the design is done to make it easy to verify,
but in the general case, I agree.  However, a framework and just a
regression for parts would still be an improvement.

I'll try to come back to it when some other more-paying ideas for
improving stability have been done...

Eivind.