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)
endif if this is a new patch maybe mail the author and tell them patch_success and regression_success else if
statusis different from last time mail the author and tell them their patch has changed status end end record the
statusfor this patch
end loop
__
Marc