From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3qG3-0000Gk-Q6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:30:19 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3qG2-0000Eo-TQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:30:19 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55383 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3qG2-0000EN-Ey for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:30:18 -0400 Received: from il.qumranet.com ([212.179.150.194]:34733) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3qFy-0003MM-DX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:30:17 -0400 Message-ID: <48466E36.7090907@qumranet.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:28:06 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Suggestion for testing framework References: <767386.58386.qm@web57006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <200806032302.09778.paul@codesourcery.com> <5d6222a80806031505t15f18fe7u256514ccbdc9960@mail.gmail.com> <200806032325.02120.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200806032325.02120.paul@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Glauber Costa , Erik de Castro Lopo , "Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN)" Paul Brook wrote: > We were talking about a tester that does periodic long running tests off svn > trunk, and reports the results. Individual developers are not directly > involved. > > Even that is tremendously useful. Once you identify a regression, it is easy to bisect and pinpoint the offending patch, which also locates the author. > You're talking about some sort of testsuite that can be distributed to all > developers and reasonably run before every patch is submitted, which is a > significantly different beast. > > I'm pretty certain the proposed tests would not be suitable for routine use by > the majority of developers are part of normal developers. They will be too > large, probably take a long time to run, and contain proprietary software > that can't be redistributed. > There's no need to start at the screen while the test is running. Proprietary software can be worked around by having the user provide a CD image and licensing keys in a configuration file. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.