From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 15 01:54:41 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E4216A412 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:54:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE29243D45 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:54:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.251]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D883A464F for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:54:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45573-02 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:53:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-137-86-60.eastlink.ca [24.137.86.60]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A833A42B3 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:53:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1027) id A8127343F5; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:53:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B2C33CC9 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:53:27 -0300 (ADT) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:53:27 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20060914224333.P1031@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Regression Tests ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:54:41 -0000 With all the talk about -STABLE, and how bad things can get, and how in 'the good old days, this would never have happened' ... instead of griping about what is, could and should be ... why not focus on how to improve the process? For instance, we know that *most* of the time, -STABLE is exactly that, -STABLE ... and there are several of us that feel that -STABLE is more stable then -RELEASE ... not everyone agrees, but, hey, everyone has a right to disagree ... For the PostgreSQL Project, we have a 'build farm' ... something that I think is similar to the tinderboxes ... but, their point isn't to just build the source tree, but to run its regression tests, and report when something fails: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl I saw the post from the guy that caused the original thread, talking about how he was working on regression tests as he's developing the code ... is there some way that we can extend the tinderboxes to run these regression tests, and put a report up on freebsd.org reporting things like 'last successful build/test', so that one could use CVSup to upgrade to that date? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664