On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/05/11 16:49, DJ Delorie wrote: >>> What type of *proof* would you accept? >>> >>> o Bisecting the commit history until it doesn't fail any more? >> >> That isn't even *evidence* that the patch caused the bug, much less >> proof. It only shows that the patch resulted in some bug happening, >> but that bug might have been latent. > Right. Often a bisect will catch the bug, but it's certainly not foolproof. > > >> If this is really what we want for an auto-revert trigger, then what >> we need is a commit hook that builds every patch and rejects any that >> cause problems. I suspect we really don't want that though. > People could certainly make an argument for this; if we had the > infrastructure which included this as part of patch tracking & > management, it'd be hard to argue against it.
Err, we already require that people bootstrap and regtest patches. Minus the case they screw this up I don't see how an autotester repeating exactly that test would be helpful. If the autotester tests something slightly different why would that suddenly be more relevant? For trunk I simply expect that default builds (with no configure options) work. There migth be breakage for other checking variants or non-default languages - this just happens, esp. during stage1. There may be breakage on weird targets. But as long as the platform that I guess > 50% of developers use works (x86-64-*-linux) it's just business as usual. Richard.
