On Wed, 2007-02-05 at 08:27 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Naz Gassiep wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >> Naz Gassiep wrote: > >> > >>> I believe the suggestion was to have an automated process that only ran > >>> on known, sane patches. > >>> > >> How do we know in advance of reviewing them that they are sane? > >> > > Same way as happens now. > > > > The question was rhetorical ... there is no list of "certified sane but > unapplied" patches. You are proceeding on the basis of a faulty > understanding of how our processes work.
Why do we need to know the patch is sane? If it does not apply cleanly
or causes regression tests to fail, the process would figure that out
quickly and cheaply. There is little cost in attempting to apply a
non-sane patch.
I am not sure that I have explained exactly what I was suggesting. Some
people seem to grok it, others seem to be talking something slightly
different. To clarify, here it is in pseudo-code:
for each patch in the queue
regression_success := false
patch_success := attempt to apply patch to head
if patch_success
regression_success := attempt to run regression tests
-- (On one machine only, not on the buildfarm)
end if
if this is a new patch
maybe mail the author and tell them patch_success and
regression_success
else
if status is different from last time
mail the author and tell them their patch has changed status
end
end
record the status for this patch
end loop
__
Marc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
