On 23 Apr 2018, at 4:00 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems that, IMO, if there was not so much concern about "regressions" in > releases, this whole revisit-versioning debate would not have come up. This > implies, to me at least, that the root cause (as I've said before) appears to > be one related to QA and testing more than anything. Unless we address this, > then nothing else really matters.
+1. > We have a test framework. The questions are: > > 1. Are we using it? Is there a CI set up for building httpd? Is there a CI available we could use to trigger the test suite on a regular basis? (I believe the answer is yes for APR). > 2. Are we using it sufficiently well? > 3. If not, what can we do to improve that? > 4. Can we supplement/replace it w/ other frameworks? > > It does seem to me that each time we patch something, there should be a test > added or extended which covers that bug. We have gotten lax in that. Same for > features. And the more substantial the change (ie, the more core code it > touches, or the more it refactors something), the more we should envision > what tests can be in place which ensure nothing breaks. > > In other words: nothing backported unless it also involves some changes to > the Perl test framework or some pretty convincing reasons why it's not > required. My perl knowledge is very rusty, making perl tests is going to be harder for some than others. Regards, Graham —
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
