From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Fri Aug 30 00:00:59 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 D809EE34CF; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f51.google.com (mail-io1-f51.google.com [209.85.166.51]) (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 46KKPk5QPVz4LV1; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-f51.google.com with SMTP id n197so8538092iod.9; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:00:58 -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=TZytS+qLdG33lUssuiKaFq2nPipy4oB5XPa0SwhYjtg=; b=MWyHBS0B8BapQAaXz7ql1Hnt0RBxjCrjIVBHlg3PRA0ZCV/c9lkafsWrsiqAXSkFGs 8AFGmC2+e2ErhHx8/BoZXJYLzjxi+7IA1EbOvA4IOTpyl2d2btdEoh4NZBPhHb28vyuq wScCp+W6K7lFnVr3/rXZvM4rzh1jyqbE3QAfP5L2queRInd6pbUFIP0vVSbg8tsGUx73 jLZg+DC+fDNNnBiArWHYdG9V03wtgeI3Wt6PTgfaiA9rXhHsmkFBcYheAX6UU9sTJETH rJIkjEFc0vnw754vk7qNNCqOsHyxbnwTxs3yMNihHzlOWVAgxvbvO3xRJKN6PMGHCJqY 8JhA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV9yLeeIUrjGHbxEtpvDg424LNpkBduMeawsB15VswURzG2FYCP nnLpnIkE7y7hkLVkoPC6lKqN2AdYr/4LJw2FwFs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwkSda+4/rES3/SE85Qy3NmavwPXy57WQVVKqnVZBKioRGX5foRbFpzBY2ZhvncpUKh5YMitnbu412iijsP9QQ= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9b96:: with SMTP id r22mr1111435iom.17.1567123257701; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:00:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190829114057.GZ71821@kib.kiev.ua> <412537DD-D98F-4B92-85F5-CB93CF33F281@FreeBSD.org> <20190829144228.GA71821@kib.kiev.ua> <20190829153712.GB71821@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20190829153712.GB71821@kib.kiev.ua> From: Ed Maste Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 20:00:41 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FCP 20190401-ci_policy: CI policy To: Konstantin Belousov Cc: Kristof Provost , FreeBSD Hackers , Li-Wen Hsu , fcp@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46KKPk5QPVz4LV1 X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.49 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; 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]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.990,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[51.166.85.209.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; IP_SCORE(-2.50)[ip: (-6.77), 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: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:59 -0000 On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 11:37, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > I fully agree with your attitude there, and understand your frustration. > IMO the right action would be to contact the committers who did the > relevant changes, first. Was it done ? What was their response ? If we had tests running consistently at the time an offending change was introduced we might know that :) This is exactly the reason I want us to have a large corpus of tests that are, as a rule, expected to consistently pass. As far as I can tell from a cursory investigation this is a flaw that predates the pf tests, and just happens to be demonstrated by them.