Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
To: cagney@gnu.org, drow@mvista.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:05:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031203045925.2FFBB4B35B@berman.michael-chastain.com> (raw)

Andrew Cagney writes:
> modify
> build
> test
> submit
> review
> commit

I'd like to go off on a bit of a tangent here.

When I submit a patch, I describe how I tested the patch.  I'm also
in the habit of asking people how they tested their patches when I'm
reviewing other people's patches.

I'd like this to become a mandatory part of a patch submission,
just like a ChangeLog entry is a mandatory part.

I'm not advocating for any particular minimum level of testing.
If someone says "Testing: I built gdb and it still compiled",
that is okay for some patches.  Indeed, I submitted a patch like
that for dwarfread.c this week, and a maintainer approved it.

In fact I am opposed to a high level of testing before committing
patches on the mainline.  Most patches never cause a problem.  As long
as it stays that way, it's more efficient for people to commit patches,
and then I test them in my next spin, and if there's a regression, I
isolate it pretty fast.  It's like interrupt processing on a deeply
pipelined processor, the processor gets more throughput at the cost of
more state to manage when an interrupt does happen.

The testing requirement would do two things.  First, just because it's
there, people would do some minimal amount of testing so that they don't
look lame in public.  Second, if a problem does occur with the patch,
then when somebody else is analyzing the problem, they have some idea of
how the patch was tested before it was integrated.

(When I was working on the linux kernel, frequently people would submit
patches and say "I didn't even compile this yet but here's the idea
...".  We handle this with RFC instead, so we don't have this problem.)

I dunno if gdb can handle a formal process change to do this.  We're all
pretty busy these days.  But if anybody shares my views, you can do this
yourself: say how you tested your patches, and ask people to include
this information in a patch when they review it.

Michael C


             reply	other threads:[~2003-12-03  5:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-12-03  5:05 Michael Elizabeth Chastain [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-12-12 19:49 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-12-13 10:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-24 17:48 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-11-23 21:08 Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24  5:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-24 16:41   ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24 16:50     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-24 18:02       ` David Carlton
2003-11-24 19:36         ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-24 18:25       ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-24 20:03         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-25  0:09           ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-27 14:30             ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-27 17:27               ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-01 15:47                 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-01 19:08                   ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-01 19:17                     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-12-01 19:22                       ` Joel Brobecker
2003-12-01 21:25                       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-01 21:32                         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-12-03  3:47                           ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-03 16:37                             ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-01 19:40                     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-04  4:44               ` Kevin Buettner
2003-12-04 15:45                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-04 17:33                   ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-05 16:14                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-12 19:26                     ` Kevin Buettner
2003-12-13  1:01                       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24 20:32         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24 23:56           ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-25  1:33             ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-25  6:51               ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-04  4:21               ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-24 19:33       ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-24 19:58         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24 21:06           ` Joel Brobecker
2003-11-26 20:54             ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-25  6:56           ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-24 19:36       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24 20:54         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-24 22:08           ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24 19:24     ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-24 19:45       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-25  6:58         ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-24 20:06       ` David Carlton
2003-11-25  6:54         ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-25 16:59           ` David Carlton
2003-11-25 17:54             ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-25 17:57               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-11-25 17:59                 ` David Carlton
2003-11-25 18:42                 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-11-25 19:21                   ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-11-25 17:58               ` David Carlton
2003-11-25 18:02               ` Kevin Buettner
2003-11-25 19:14               ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-05 16:26           ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-05 17:56             ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-06 14:09               ` Andrew Cagney
2003-12-06 15:23                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-12-07 15:54                   ` Andrew Cagney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20031203045925.2FFBB4B35B@berman.michael-chastain.com \
    --to=mec.gnu@mindspring.com \
    --cc=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox