From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3edm-0006Xn-88 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:06:02 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3edk-0006XO-S4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:06:01 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57478 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3edk-0006XL-JL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:06:00 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.237]:47004) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3edk-0000jY-BP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:06:00 -0400 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c49so632581wra.19 for ; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d6222a80806031505t15f18fe7u256514ccbdc9960@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:05:58 -0300 From: "Glauber Costa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Suggestion for testing framework In-Reply-To: <200806032302.09778.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <767386.58386.qm@web57006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <20080604075042.aff7c055.mle+tools@mega-nerd.com> <200806032302.09778.paul@codesourcery.com> 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: Erik de Castro Lopo , "Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN)" On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Paul Brook wrote: > On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >> Balazs Attila-Mihaly (Cd-MaN) wrote: >> > Hello all >> > >> > It seems that there is agreement that some sort of automated >> > testing is "a good thing" ;-). >> >> I am a huge fan of testing and think that qemu developers and users >> would both benefit from more automated testing. > > IMHO Automated testing by itself is pretty much worthless. > The value comes from having someone look at the results, and actively fix > problems as they are discovered. Once you've allocated resources to do this > bugfixing setting up the testing is fairly trivial. Not at all. A developer writing something new for qemu will have a way to make sure his code works before submitting it upstream. Right now, each one has to write its own testing, each time, which can be failed in itself, and not do a full coverage. So while it may not do much for existing code, it can certainly help the quality of new code to improve. -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."