> If you do not > prevent integration of patches that break NetBSD regression, that will get > in, and tests will break one by one over time. On the other hand, if patch A starts blocking all merges because of NetBSD failures, then all platforms - including NetBSD - are denied the benefit of fixes in patches B through Z. The real problem is that our tests are so non-deterministic, so that they pass once and a patch gets merged, but then fail every time after that. The signal-to-noise ratio is really low, and for some reason this problem seems even worse on NetBSD than on Linux. The cost of mandatory NetBSD tests is unbounded, sometimes small enough to be a good investment (of our time) but sometimes totally out of proportion to that benefit. That's not just frustrating for developers; it's also a disservice to the vast majority of our users who might be waiting on fixes. I'd prefer a "defined level of effort" approach which *might* reduce the benefit we derive from NetBSD testing but *definitely* keeps the cost under control. _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
