qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] iotests: Do not run the iotests during "make check" anymore


From: Max Reitz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iotests: Do not run the iotests during "make check" anymore
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:00:30 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.0

On 02.10.19 16:21, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Running the iotests during "make check" is causing more headaches than
> benefits for the block layer maintainers, so let's disable the iotests
> during "make check" again.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> ---
>  tests/Makefile.include   | 2 +-
>  tests/qemu-iotests/group | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

So the background behind this patch is that I continued to
complain/whine until I had a short open discussion with Thomas in which
he agreed to send this patch.  My points were:

(1) It doesn’t seem like people care too much about this.

(2) It isn’t very useful, because we run so few tests, and they don’t
seem to be the critical ones.

(3) In the past months, I feel like I was the single person of contact
when it comes to iotests breaking, and given the above I don’t feel like
having to act immediately on a broken make check is a good use of my
time (there’s always too much to do, so I do have to prioritize (like
everyone else)).


I’d hoped that this patch would provoke people that disagree with (1) or
(2), and potentially help me out to alleviate (3).  Or maybe provoke
nobody, in which case (1) would have been confirmed.


That didn’t quite happen, but Kevin and Peter decided to reply to my
original discussion with Thomas.

From what they’ve said I gather that (1) and (2) are wrong, and I assume
that Kevin will as the/a block maintainer have the same responsibility
as me when it comes to (3).

As such, while I can’t NAK this patch in their name, I can say that I no
longer see a need for this patch, because the reasons for why I’ve
requested it have been shown to be wrong.

I assume that Thomas actually doesn’t want to see this patch merged, and
that Kevin won’t merge it either, so I think that effectively makes this
a “passive-NAK”.

Max

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]