"make test" redux 2
dank at kegel.com
Fri Sep 16 16:54:03 CDT 2011
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
> I'm not going to revert patches, that would make a mess of the
> history. Reverting is a serious event and should happen only when a
> change is completely wrong, not when it happens to not be 100% correct
> or to have some unwanted side effect.
The rpct4 change seems seriously wrong, offhand, given
how widespread the breakage it sometimes causes is.
(A lot of tests seemed to think that the C:\ drive didn't exist.)
> There are already many checks done before commit, and adding more checks
> like you do is of course a very good idea. All together, that should
> ensure that no committed patch can cause dramatic breakage. But there
> will always be minor breakages, and flaky tests, and race conditions,
> and buildbot must be able to deal with them gracefully, without
> requiring me to scramble a revert.
It's kind of hard to gracefully handle it when dozens of tests fail
randomly because of a bad commit.
Mercifully, this kind of breakage doesn't happen often, so I guess
I'm ok with doing local reverts when it does. I'm just worried that
I won't be able to get to it quickly enough, and the resulting barrage
of test failures will turn people off.
More information about the wine-devel