[openib-general] OpenSM Issues of the last couple days

[Sasha Khapyorsky]

On 13:20 Sat 09 Dec     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 13:01, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> > Hi Eitan,
> > 
> > On 16:26 Sat 09 Dec     , Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> > > 
> > > Without another devel branch I will not be able to test patches before 
> > > the make it into the trunk.
> > > 
> > > I do not know how to make an automatic mail extraction into patches into 
> > > tree such that I can have automatic patch check.
> > 
> > You can just pipe emails with patches to git-am (manually after review
> > or automatically via procmail), so this will be committed in the local
> > tree/branch as you want.
> > 
> > > I am not a great fan of a new branch too.
> > > 
> > > So we need to agree that regression runs resulting with bug reporting 
> > > post commit to the trunk is our mode of work.
> > 
> > It is ok for me. At least as start point, if we will have automatic
> > nightly regression tests for the trunk it is just fine. If this will
> > work, and after collecting some experience we may think about
> > "quarantine" branch/tree and the regression testing expansion.
> > 
> > > I do not have a big issue with this (but it is more work for Hal).
> > 
> > Hal, what do you say?
> 
> What is the nightly regression and who will run it ?

Good question. I guess Eitan has automated regression test suite which
is able to pull _committed_ tree and run test series. Eitan, right?

> 
> It seems to me that the patches could be automated or a manual procedure
> can be put in place so I am not keen on maintaining a pre-trunk branch
> but would if I am convinced it can't be done easily by the methods I
> mentioned, that the regression would be run nightly on a continuing
> basis, and that reports would be issued based on the runs (to interested
> parties).

Ok.

I think we could start testing with trunk if we still have the issue
with pre-trunk patches. Systematic regression report would be good
thing. All this should be good start, and if I understand correctly this
can be launched immediately. Then we can deal with pre-trunk stuff.

Eitan, how is it hard for you to prepare procmail's rule which will
automatically apply the patches from emails to the local pre-trunk
tree? Or do you think it is insufficient?

Sasha

> 
> -- Hal
> 
> > Sasha
> > 
> > > 
> > > Eitan
> > > 
> > > Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> > > >On 18:42 Fri 08 Dec     , Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> > > >  
> > > >>Instead on relying on bug reading I use automatic regression. I wish we 
> > > >>could agree on some regression that
> > > >>each developer will have to run before patches are committed to the trunk.
> > > >>On my side I would love to have an automatic way to include all the 
> > > >>patches posted (one at a time) run "dead or alive" check
> > > >>and provide feedback. Currently my automation is limited to testing the 
> > > >>trunk. So I will always be complaining after the patches are
> > > >>committed. I think this is the way most other components testing works.
> > > >>
> > > >>What kind of regression suite do you and Sasha use?
> > > >>    
> > > >
> > > >On my side it clearly depends from kind of changes. In general I would
> > > >call this "uni-testing".
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >>Can we agree on minimal pre-commit testing?
> > > >>Can we have a branch for that sake where all patches will first have to 
> > > >>go into for 2 days? (it will allow for pre-trunk testing).
> > > >>    
> > > >
> > > >One more development branch? Will you test (or even see) this? If so I
> > > >can publish the "fresh" tree.
> > > >
> > > >Sasha
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >openib-general mailing list
> > > >openib-general at openib.org
> > > >http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> > > >
> > > >To unsubscribe, please visit 
> > > >http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> > > >  
> > > 
>