From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Joey Hess <id@joeyh.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: add an optional test to test git-annex
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 19:19:02 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqbmqrwzu1.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACBZZX4Jppr7ht7m444EjW4CDYX5CMvnxtStH4bF=A19TYKcZg@mail.gmail.com> ("Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason"'s message of "Wed, 17 May 2017 08:47:01 +0200")
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>> Well, it is one thing to place git-annex under CI to make sure its
>> latest and greatest works together well with our latest and greatest
>> (and it may be something we want to see happen), but driving its
>> tests from our testsuite sounds like a tail wagging the dog, at
>> least to me.
>
> To me this is just a question of:
>
> * Is it the case that git-annex tests for a lot of edge cases we don't
> test for: Yes, probably. As evidenced by them spotting this
> regression, and not us.
And I'd encourage them to keep doing so.
> * We can (and should) add a test for the specific breakage we caused
> in 2.13.0, but that's no replacement for other things annex may be
> covering & we may be missing which'll catch future breakages.
>
> * It's a pretty established practice to test a library (git) along
> with its consumers (e.g. annex) before a major release.
I am not so sure about the division of labor. What you are
advocating would work _ONLY_ if we test with a perfect & bug-free
version of the consumers. If they are also a moving target, then
I do not think it is worth it. After all, we are *not* in the
business of testing these consumers.
Unless I misunderstood you and you were saying that we freeze a
version, or a set of versions, of customer that is/are known to pass
their own tests, and test the combination of that frozen version of
the customer with our daily development. If that is the case, then
I would agree that we are using their test to test us, not them.
But I somehow didn't get that impression, hence my reaction.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-17 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-16 17:10 reversion in GIT_COMMON_DIR refs path Joey Hess
2017-05-16 17:50 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-16 17:59 ` Joey Hess
2017-05-16 20:37 ` [PATCH] tests: add an optional test to test git-annex Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-16 22:10 ` Joey Hess
2017-05-17 2:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-17 6:47 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-17 10:19 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2017-05-17 19:33 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-05-17 23:03 ` Stefan Beller
2017-05-17 23:59 ` Brandon Williams
2017-05-17 23:56 ` Brandon Williams
2017-05-19 14:37 ` reversion in GIT_COMMON_DIR refs path Joey Hess
2017-05-22 11:11 ` Duy Nguyen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqbmqrwzu1.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=id@joeyh.name \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).