On Wed, 2007-02-05 at 08:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Naz Gassiep wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >   
> >> Naz Gassiep wrote:
> >>     
> >>> I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only ran
> >>> on known, sane patches.
> >>>       
> >> How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane?
> >>     
> > Same way as happens now. 
> >   
> The question was rhetorical ... there is no list of "certified sane but 
> unapplied" patches. You are proceeding on the basis of a faulty 
> understanding of how our processes work.

Why do we need to know the patch is sane?  If it does not apply cleanly
or causes regression tests to fail, the process would figure that out
quickly and cheaply.  There is little cost in attempting to apply a
non-sane patch.

I am not sure that I have explained exactly what I was suggesting.  Some
people seem to grok it, others seem to be talking something slightly
different.  To clarify, here it is in pseudo-code:

for each patch in the queue
  regression_success := false
  patch_success := attempt to apply patch to head
  if patch_success
    regression_success := attempt to run regression tests
    -- (On one machine only, not on the buildfarm)
  end if
  if this is a new patch
    maybe mail the author and tell them patch_success and
    if status is different from last time
      mail the author and tell them their patch has changed status
  record the status for this patch
end loop


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to