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 regression_success else if status is different from last time mail the author and tell them their patch has changed status end end record the status for this patch end loop __ Marc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part