Mark Goodwin wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 03:27:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> I only fear
>>> we'll never get it in with the current review and commit latencies
>>> for XFS :(
>> I can see this being a big issue in the not-too-distant future.....
> [getting off-topic for this thread, but anyway ..]
> This is already a big issue, obviously, and has been for some time.
> Internally, we're attempting to refine our patch acceptance processes,
> (e.g. gitify our internal dev tree and mirror it on oss so it's much
> easier to push back out to oss). But the QA overhead remains a stubborn
> problem. I think we're going to have to ask for QA tests (both regression
> and performance) to be written as part of the patch acceptance policy -
> under this policy, merely passing existing QA will not be sufficient.
I think that'll depend very much on what the change is. For new
functionality, sounds good; for bugfixes with testcases, sounds good.
For general algorithm improvements... how do you write a new QA test for
"Use the inode tree for finding dirty inodes?" Or for that matter, my
remaining 2 shouting-removal patches ;)
> We have recently set up external access to a system for QA and
> regression testing for Christoph's use .. perhaps that should
> be a permanent offering?
Sounds awesome, for serious contributors. I'd be happy to use it, too ;)