On 2005-07-23 16:11:30 +0100 Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Samstag, 23.07.05 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Benoit Astruc:
Hello,
I just tried to compil GNUstep Base 1.11.0, freshly download from GNUstep
http) and I found that there is an error GSXML.m at line 5 142 :
request = [tequest initWithURL: [NSURL URLWithString: connectionURL]];
should be
request = [request initWithURL: [NSURL URLWithString: connectionURL]];
I suppose.
Maybe it's corrected in CVS but it seems quite bad to have such error in
the last stable version.
IIRC the odd minor release number (11 in 1.11.0) points out that this is
an
unstable release of GNUstep.
But nevertheless I think it is a bad sign that this kind of a bug (doesn't
compile) could creep into a *release* of GNUstep. And even worse, it would
not have been detected if Benoit would not have built this special
configuration. The bug has gone unnoticed for a long time, it has been
introduced with:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gnustep/gnustep/core/base/
Source/Additions/GSXML.m.diff?r1=1.78&r2=1.79
on Sat Mar 12 17:38:18 2005 annotated with "Patch to port GSXMLRPC to
MacOSX" which tells me the submitter did *not* test his patch before
committing. Otherwise he would have experienced what Benoit experienced.
Please don't get me wrong here. I don't want to do finger pointing because
of a small bug that only occurs in border cases. My issue is something
else:
While we keep fixing things here while inadvertently destroying things
there.
This shows that we could need some sort of quality assurance in our
development process. Otherwise GNUstep will never become really mature.
There are several things we could do in this regard (all stolen from the
GCC
team)
CVS check-ins:
- require at least a compile test before things get checked in (this would
catch this sort of bugs)
- peer review of patches to be checked in
- do a regression test before checking in things (needs test cases, see
below)
bug fixes:
- write test cases that prove a bug is fixed
releases:
- create a CVS branch (not just a tag) for each release (this helps to
insure that no new bugs are introduced in bugfix releases (caused by new
features added meanwhile))
- maintain release branches for a while, at least until the next stable
release (and port bugfixes back to mainline of course)
- create a series of release candidates before actually doing the release
some of those are very complex (peer review comes to my mind here) others
not. I think we should at least require some of them
What do you think?
Well ... all those things are nice to have, but they are obviously of
varying cost/benefit ratios.
None of them caught this bug (and most of them are in routine use in varying
degrees) ... because the sad fact is that nobody had this particular setup
... realistically there is no way to catch bugs in unusual configurations
because people won't have the machines/operating systems or resources to
change machine/OS/configuration etc, so you have to adopt one of two
approaches ...
1. reduce all the options/configurations to a minimal set such that they can
be properly tested/supported by the core developers..
2. accept that the odd options/configurations won't get tested except when
people who need to use them try them out.
I think we generally prefer the second approach, but there is always a
balance struck between the two extremes.
Personally, I think that branching is more overhead than it's worth, but
that regression testing is good, which is why that I wrote the regression
testing framework we've been using up till now, and support the move to the
latest one (because it's easier for ObjC programmers to write tests for).
I don't think that a test on all platforms/configurations is reasonable
before a checkin ... that's just not ever going to be practical. I do agree
that a test of the standard gnu/linux build is needed ... but I think
everyone does that.
You say 'which tells me the submitter did *not* test his patch before
committing'
If I remember correctly, I committed that patch on behalf of the submitter,
and I'm sure he tested the code before he sent it to us ... as he was using
it himself. The fact is that accidental alterations to files/patches do
occur between testing and being submitted/committed ... this particular
single character change probably was a result of viewing in an editor for a
visual check. I don't think it suggests that the submitter was bad/sloppy
in the processes he used.
So ... my vote for priorities would be ..
1. ask people to volunteer to test the odd configurations they have the
machines for. If we had a list of people who actuyally used the less
popular hardware, operating systems, and configuration/build options, we
could do an email reminder asking them to test the latest cvs code just
before a release (even better if they could do automated builds/tests on a
daily basis, I think someone was working on that)
2. keep asking people to contribute regression testcases if/when they have
the time. The fact that people had to install guile to run the old
regression tests was an excuse for them not to help ... with the new
testsuite that excuse no longer exists.
3. probably everything else is either way lower priority or routine anyway.
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep