On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/20/2010 12:24 PM, Mark Wong wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I can run tests for folks before they apply a patch and "red" the
>>> build farm. I can also research fixes easier because I am using the OS,
>>> rather than running blind tests. I am just telling you what people told
>>> me.
>>
>> I've been slowly trying to rebuild something that was in use at the
>> OSDL to test patches. I just proofed something that I think works
>> with the git repository:
>>
>> http://207.173.203.223:5000/patch/show/48
>>
>> If you click on the PASS or FAIL text, it will display the SHA1,
>> author and commit message that the patch was applied to. Think this
>> will be useful?
>
>
> The issue has always been how much we want to ask people to trust code that
> is not committed. My answer is "not at all." Reviewers and committers will
> presumably eyeball the code before trying to compile/run it, but any
> automated system of code testing for uncommitted code is way too risky,
> IMNSHO.
I was hoping this would be more of a reviewing tool, not something
that would be an excuse for someone to not try running with a patch.
For example, if patch doesn't apply, configure, or build the output is
captured and can be referenced. Also specifically in Bruce's example
if there is enough concern about making the buildfarm red I thought
this could help in these few specific aspects. But maybe I don't
understand the scope of testing Bruce is referring to. :)
Regards,
Mark