Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RESEND2] Qemu unmaintained?

[Avi Kivity]

On 09/10/2009 11:36 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 21:40 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>    
> > (and we're quite far from catching every regression btw).
> >      
> That's kind of my point. A lot of regressions are only found after
> they've been pushed. Delaying a push delays finding those regressions.
>    

That makes sense if the regression tests don't find any regressions.  If 
they do, then pushing despite those regressions means everyone is now 
hitting the regressions, swearing, and trying to work around them.  We 
get massive parallelism but little progress.

> Don't get me wrong - we certainly want to avoid regressions and doing
> some testing before pushing is a good idea, but there is a balance to be
> struck.
>
> It's also the case that not all patches are equal. It should be possible
> to short-cut the process for small patches, or regression fixes, or
> patches from a trusted author who has done significant testing already.
>    

I think reducing the batch size will also help.  If the batch contains 
100 patches there's a high likelihood of a regression in there.  If 
you're testing 10-15 patches at a time it may actually work, and if not, 
you can easily guess who the offender is.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function