Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > I'm personally reluctant to codify it, because it's really hard to > codify good judgment. But if you say in your patch how you tested it, > the reviewers should be able to consider whether that is sufficient.
I agree. I always claim that my most valuable contribution to GCC was the argument I started a decade ago that culminated in us deciding that you had to run the regression testsuites before check-in. So, I'm a big fan of testing, and the general idea that you shouldn't have to deal with breakage because I was too lazy to test. On the other hand, I think we can get obsessive about it. Testing Ada and Java libraries for every C front-end change seems excessive to me. Testing is not free. Similarly, doing a bootstrap on Super-H GNU/Linux is possible, but it takes a *long* time. I doubt that's worthwhile most of the time. I think we should allow some judgment, and, as you say, we should provide transparency with respect to which testing was done. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
