On 2011-02-09T17:09:29, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > I agree with that. (Not the coward part, of course!) IMHO though, the
> > answer is to improve our test coverage to the point where we can
> > refactor and clean up code without taking an unreasonable risk of
> > breakage.
> Dream on ;-)
Uhm. This is standard practice in other projects. Even in some that make
up the rest of the cluster stack. Why should this be impossible here?
> In that case, it would need to be a set of incremental changes
> so that each of them can be easy to understand and check and so
> forth.
Not necessarily. Code review of individual changesets is excellent for
spotting bugs, but an orthogonal practice to automated regression
tests.
> > See my other mail for a proposal: the Linux-HA lunch fund for testers
> > ;-)
> Must have missed that one.
It helps to read all mails before responding, or to not read them in
thread but date order; otherwise, they may contain forward references
;-)
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
