Jan Schmidt <list.bt...@jan-o-sch.net> wrote: > [...]
> You don't quote my second argument, which is not "just skip regression > testing". > I'll try again in other words: A regression test only makes sense if it can > prevent us from making the same mistake again. As far as I see, the reproducer > script is so specific, that the only thing it can prevent is an exact revert > of > Stefan's patch. If you argue that we should have a test for just this, fair > enough, then we could use exactly Stefan's script. I don't think that gains us > anything. We're not normally reverting bugfix patches deliberately, especially > not for very short patches with very long descriptions. > [...] The presence of the bug in the current code indicates that someone in the past made an error, and that suggests that this error can be repeated (by someone else) for example in a rewrite months or years in the future. The purpose of a regression test is to spare anyone who touches the code to go through all the commits to see if they're unintentionally reverting a bug fix, but give them a nice "FAIL"/"PASS" traffic light. Tim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
