On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:42:36PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:48:11AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:00:59PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Do we have the time for those in the BAT budget? > > Do we not? It has been demonstrated that people notice when gamma is > broken, can we afford to risk repeating this bug? > > (Or in other news, where are all the new QA bugs from failing tests? > Seems like we are missing some bug reports from igt added to show off > bugs.) We don't run enough test, don't report the bugs we do catch and don't handle it. It's all sad, but unfortunately just piling even more onto the BAT pile is not going to help anyone - as is the results are already pretty close to useless. The idea behind BAT really is that it runs real fast, and that it's a gate for a more extended testcase. If we add tests until it's real slow and still broken, no one wins at all. Unfortunately I can't tell you how to get out of this mess either :( -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
