> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Wilkinson [mailto:s...@your-file-system.com]
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:25, David Boyes wrote: > >> 'make check' on a single machine will never give you useful testing > results other than to find packaging or "smoke test" errors, which aren't all > that helpful overall. > > I agree with you with regards to crowd sourced testing, but I just wanted to > call out this statement, as I think make check can actually be hugely helpful. > [snip - bunch of good points about pre-build and commit-time sanity checking] Good point. I was considering more of the post-build QA portion of the problem, but addressing the issue of build failure at the input end of the problem makes sense as well. > Applying 'make check' as a commit requirement, and improving its coverage > will hugely help with this problem. I see it more as a developer tool than a > general QA solution. Agreed. I think it'd be even more effective if the build sequence was less convoluted, but it's certainly better than nothing. > What its not going to do is replace large scale test harnesses and detailed > test plans. We still need the ability to generate large numbers of clients > hammering a server to expose particular problems. Amen. I have a couple ideas on how that could be done, but all require a bit more baking before tossing them into public view. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
