From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09086C10 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9A9C198 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 16:48:39 +0000 (UTC) To: Steven Rostedt References: <576cea07-770a-4864-c3f5-0832ff211e94@leemhuis.info> <20170703123025.7479702e@gandalf.local.home> <20170705084528.67499f8c@gandalf.local.home> <4080ecc7-1aa8-2940-f230-1b79d656cdb4@redhat.com> <20170705092757.63dc2328@gandalf.local.home> <20170705140607.GA30187@kroah.com> <20170705112707.54d7f345@gandalf.local.home> From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:48:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170705112707.54d7f345@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Carlos O'Donell , Shuah Khan , Thorsten Leemhuis , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] & [TECH TOPIC] Improve regression tracking List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/05/2017 08:27 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:16:33 -0700 > Guenter Roeck wrote: [ ... ] >> >> If we start shaming people for not providing unit tests, all we'll accomplish is >> that people will stop providing bug fixes. > > I need to be clearer on this. What I meant was, if there's a bug > where someone has a test that easily reproduces the bug, then if > there's not a test added to selftests for said bug, then we should > shame those into doing so. > I don't think that public shaming of kernel developers is going to work any better than public shaming of children or teenagers. Maybe a friendlier approach would be more useful ? If a test to reproduce a problem exists, it might be more beneficial to suggest to the patch submitter that it would be great if that test would be submitted as unit test instead of shaming that person for not doing so. Acknowledging and praising kselftest submissions might help more than shaming for non-submissions. > A bug that is found by inspection or hard to reproduce test cases are > not applicable, as they don't have tests that can show a regression. > My concern would be that once the shaming starts, it won't stop. Guenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] & [TECH TOPIC] Improve regression tracking Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 09:48:31 -0700 Message-ID: References: <576cea07-770a-4864-c3f5-0832ff211e94@leemhuis.info> <20170703123025.7479702e@gandalf.local.home> <20170705084528.67499f8c@gandalf.local.home> <4080ecc7-1aa8-2940-f230-1b79d656cdb4@redhat.com> <20170705092757.63dc2328@gandalf.local.home> <20170705140607.GA30187@kroah.com> <20170705112707.54d7f345@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170705112707.54d7f345-f9ZlEuEWxVcJvu8Pb33WZ0EMvNT87kid@public.gmane.org> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Greg KH , Carlos O'Donell , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Thorsten Leemhuis , ksummit-discuss-cunTk1MwBs98uUxBSJOaYoYkZiVZrdSR2LY78lusg7I@public.gmane.org, Shuah Khan List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 07/05/2017 08:27 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 08:16:33 -0700 > Guenter Roeck wrote: [ ... ] >> >> If we start shaming people for not providing unit tests, all we'll accomplish is >> that people will stop providing bug fixes. > > I need to be clearer on this. What I meant was, if there's a bug > where someone has a test that easily reproduces the bug, then if > there's not a test added to selftests for said bug, then we should > shame those into doing so. > I don't think that public shaming of kernel developers is going to work any better than public shaming of children or teenagers. Maybe a friendlier approach would be more useful ? If a test to reproduce a problem exists, it might be more beneficial to suggest to the patch submitter that it would be great if that test would be submitted as unit test instead of shaming that person for not doing so. Acknowledging and praising kselftest submissions might help more than shaming for non-submissions. > A bug that is found by inspection or hard to reproduce test cases are > not applicable, as they don't have tests that can show a regression. > My concern would be that once the shaming starts, it won't stop. Guenter