On 05.11.2015 13:49, Craig Ringer wrote:
I believe that we need to lower the barrier for testing.
While I agree, I'd also like to note that formulaic testing is often
of limited utility. Good testing still requires a significant
investment of time and effort to understand the changes made by a
patch, which areas need focused attention, think about corner cases,
Yes, you are right. But a limited test is better than no test at all.
But of course not enough.
For me it is easy to check comments or sql commands, but not the c code.
But with lower barriers it would be easier to test 2 of the 3 mentioned
items. At the moment its often none, because its hard.
"make check passes" doesn't really tell anyone that much.
I could even imagine to set up an open for everyone test-instance of HEAD
where users are allowed to test like the wanted. Than the barrier is reduced
to "connect to PostgreSQL and execute SQL".
Gee, that'd be fun to host ;)
More seriously, it's not HEAD that's of that much interest, it's HEAD
+ [some patch or set of patches].
There are systems that can pull in patchsets, build a project, and run
it. But for something like PostgreSQL it'd be pretty hard to offer
wide public access, given the trivial potential for abuse.
Yes, but i would do this. Creating a FreeBSD Jail which is reset
regularly is no great deal and very secure. My bigger problem is the
lack of IPv4 addresses. At the moment i am limited to IPv6 only hosts.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: