On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:37:14 -0400 > Jeffrey Altman <jalt...@secure-endpoints.com> wrote: > >> > ...and I responded with that it makes it much easier to see when the >> > 'make check' tests no longer fail for a platform, so we know when we >> > can change it into a "failing step" (or "required to verify" step, >> > or whatever). Instead of asking someone to manually run the tests, I >> > can submit a change and look at the buildbot output to see if it >> > worked. I have not yet heard any downside for doing that. >> >> As an intermediary step this is fine. This is not acceptable for long >> term use. > > Yes, sorry I wasn't clear on that. I just meant doing that until 'make > check' works on the platform in question. I intended this as something > temporary until 'make check' becomes more robust/official, or for a > temporary period if we add a new builder platform, and 'make check' > doesn't work right away.
That's probably a reasonable approach. The fun bit is in some cases I think we are going to end up needing a wrapper script on the buildslaves so e.g. not-currently- installed shared libraries can be in the run path of the make check... but this suddenly opens us up to more interesting things happening as a result of submitted patches. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
