On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:15:04AM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:46:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > > > This is not cool folks.
> > >
> > > I'm really sorry for the breakage. I'm trying to treat -STABLE very
> > > gently, unfortunately this time I made a mistake.
> > >
> > > The change was committed to HEAD at 9 August. The change fixed one bug,
> > > but introduced another, which I didn't expected. The change seemed to be
> > > trivial and I only tested that it fixes the bug I was tracking down, I
> > > haven't looked for regressions.
> > >
> >
> > Well, after this lengthy discussion, I've switched to -RELEASE.
> > -STABLE just ain't... We all realize that none of us would
> > put out a buggy release--not even -CURRENT. But let me ask
> > the next obvious question. How difficult would it be to
> > build a regression test, or suite of tests? Obviously, this
> > could be done over months -> years. (In my last lifetime
> > as a hacker I was in the kernel test group [a BSD-4.4 based
> > release on new architecture]. ) It's a bit hard to believe
> > that with all the genius in this effort, that no regression
> > testing is done.
>
> I'm trying to implement regression tests to the code I add. You can find
> them in /usr/src/tools/regression/:
>
> geom_concat 2 files, 2 tests
> geom_eli 15 files, 5818 tests
> geom_gate 3 files, 6 tests
> geom_mirror 7 files, 27 tests
> geom_nop 2 files, 2 tests
> geom_raid3 12 files, 13 tests
> geom_shsec 2 files, 6 tests
> geom_stripe 2 files, 2 tests
> ipsec 1 file, 306 tests
> redzone9 1 file, 6 tests
> usr.bin/pkill 27 files, 49 tests
>
> As I said already, I mistakenly thought the change was trivial and the
> only thing I tested was if it fixes a bug I was tracking down back then.
>
> We dicuss from time to time that we should have service simlar to
> tinderbox, which will run regression tests regularly and report
> regressions to the mailing lists - the more we automate the smaller
> chance for a human mistake like mine. Unfortunately this is not yet
> done.
You're right in saying that the more automation, the
more stability. Hats off for all this good work
(from somebody who has been there before:).... This is
the kind of thing tht needs to be done (i) to catch bugs
before they are committed, and (ii) to make BSD all the
more trustworthy and bullet-proof.
HAving run FBSD since 2.0.5 and only *one* "fatal trap" is
pretty hard to beat.
gary
>
> --
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org
> FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
--
Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thought.org Public service Unix
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
