Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?
Date: 1998-05-26 16:00:19
Message-ID: 199805261600.MAA12981@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > On Mon, 25 May 1998, David Gould wrote:
> >> - if the build and regression is good, then a snapshot is made into a
> >> "last known good" location.
>
> > Actually, ummm...I've been considering removing the snapshot's
> > altogether, now that anoncvs works.
>
> It may be worth pointing out that cvs allows anyone to retrieve *any*
> prior state of the code. This opens up a great number of options that
> a simple periodic snapshot does not. I think it's worth continuing the
> snapshot series for those who don't want to install cvs for some reason,
> but that probably won't be the primary access method anymore.

I have to agree with Marc. The author did test with the regression
tests. In fact, the regression tests are not up-to-date, so there are
meny diffs even when the code works, and we can't expect someone to keep
the regression tests spotless at all times. What I normally do is to
run the regression tests, save the output, run them with the patch, and
compare the differences. But, sometimes, they don't show up.

When people report problems, we do research, find the cause, and get the
current tree fixed. cvs with -Ddate to find the date it broke is
usually all we need.

And I am the one who wants patches applied within a few days of
appearance. I think it encourages people to submit patches. Nothing
more annoying than to submit a patch that fixes a problem you have, and
find that it is not yet in the source tree for others to use and test.

> This sort of fiasco could be minimized if everyone got in the habit of
> running regression tests before submitting their patches. Here I have
> to disagree with Marc's opinion that it's not really important whether
> pre-alpha code works. If the tree is currently broken, that prevents
> everyone else from running regression tests on what *they* are doing,
> and consequently encourages the submission of even more code that hasn't
> been adequately tested. I would like to see a policy that you don't
> check in code until it passes regression test for you locally. We will
> still have failures because of (a) portability problems --- ie it works
> at your site, but not for someone else; and (b) unforeseen interactions
> between patches submitted at about the same time. But hopefully those
> will be relatively easy to track down if the normal state is that things
> mostly work.
>
> We might also consider making more use of cvs' ability to track multiple
> development branches. If several people need to cooperate on a large
> change, they could work together in a cvs branch until their mods are
> finished, allowing them to share development files without breaking the
> main branch for others.

Actually, things have been working well for quite some time. The age of
the snapshots and the lack of anon-cvs/CVSup was slowing down people
from seeing/fixing patches. The old folks had access, but the people
who were submitting patches did not. That should be fixed now.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-05-26 16:00:41 Re: [GENERAL] RE: [HACKERS] error messages not only English
Previous Message Vadim Mikheev 1998-05-26 15:55:27 Re: [GENERAL] RE: [HACKERS] error messages not only English