I was planning to send an e-mail that more or less says these same things, so I agree with Steve.
Nate > I saw your earlier mail and you have a good point but after some reflection > I still don't agree. It sounds good to say that every revision should pass > regressions, but in practice I don't know how much that matters. I > certainly think that every revision should compile and run, because > otherwise 'hg bisect' is a pain, but I've never used bisect to track down > when a regression started failing... I guess it's possible, but if > regressions are running regularly then we should catch failures soon enough > that it's not such a mystery where things went wrong. > > Meanwhile it's nice to just be able to ignore the csets that are labeled as > stats updates and not wade through them to find actual code changes. > Perhaps even more compelling is that there are a number of times where > people (including me) have made some pretty substantive changes that are > spread out across several csets, and it's a big enough pain to regenerate > stats that you really only want to do it once for a related sequence of > changes, and once you cross that bridge then you're admitting that you're > not going to have regressions pass at every rev. _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
