On Wednesday 8 December 2010 02:51:46 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Tuesday, December 7, 2010, Benoit Jacob wrote: > > ***** > > 3. QA, Unit-testing, continuous testing (KDE: very little, Mozilla: a > > lot) > > > > Let's face it, KDE has always been deficient in the QA department. In > > > > order to ensure good QA, it needs: > > * a lot more unit tests than it currently has > > agreed. care to donate some resources? :) > > > * unit tests must be automatically run, frequently. > > agreed; people are working on automated unit test set ups for kde. we have > > more variance than mozilla does however, which means this: > > In mozilla, > > > > everything is built and the unit tests run on 10 configs everytime you > > push to the repository, see http://tbpl.mozilla.org/ > > would be great. given our resources and the variety of our targets, highly > unlikely for now. in future, perhaps. > > > * regressions must never be tolerated. if a commit causes a > > > > regression, back it out. > > ah, blanket statements. as a rule of thumb: good idea. rigidly followed: > stupid, as it's an awesome way to discourage development contribution.
Note that it piggy back to unit tests IMO. If a commit causes a regression caught by a unit test it should be reverted indeed. If that happens it's mainly a problem during the reviewing phase and so on. Going beyond than that could indeed discourage development contribution (unit tests are easy enough to run before you send the patch to be a good compromise). My 0.02€. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
