On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:20:42PM +0100, Julio Merino wrote:
> On 6/16/11 9:54 AM, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:29:36AM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >> So here's the formal question: would someone object if I add back
> >> 'options DIAGNOSTIC' to i386 and amd64 GENERIC and INSTALL kernels,
> >> with a comment saying this should be disabled on release branch
> >> (it would be up to releng to comment it out as part of the release
> >> process) ?
> >
> > I am in favour of this proposal (and would add sparc64)
>
> Me too.
>
> > - but in case we
> > do not agree, we should at least make sure that all regular automatic test
> > runs are using kernels with DIAGNOSTIC enabled.
>
> There is still the possibility that DIAGNOSTIC might hide real bugs in
> the automated tests, although unlikely.
I think in HEAD we have more bugs exposed by DIAGNOSTIC than hidden by it.
>
> We'd get around this by _also_ running continuous tests on release
> branches. This way, we'd have coverage for both diagnostic and
> non-diagnostic kernels where the options make most sense.
Sure. I'm not sure about the state of atf in netbsd-5, but it's definitvely
something we want for netbsd-6.
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
