On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 07:48:05AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 10:28 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > I think before anything like that is viable we need to show a > > concerted and visible interest in actually running the tests we > > already have and paying attention to the results - if people can see > > that they're just checking a checkbox that will often result in low > > quality tests which can do more harm than good. > it depends what you mean by "we". I used to run a battery of tests > over every SCSI commit. It was time consuming and slowed down the We as a community, I think something viable needs to be central services like kernelci that's automated and allows multiple people to be involved with the analysis. Hand running tests at scale just doesn't. > The corollary I take away from this is that the less intrusive the test > infrastructure is (at least to my process) the happier I am. The 0day > quantum leap for me was going from testing my tree and telling me of > problems after I've added the patch to testing patches posted to the > mailing list, which tells me of problems *before* the commit gets added > to the tree. I think we'd get a long way just by looking at what's ending up in -next - it's not as good as detecting things before they go in but it's workable if people keep on top of things.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
