[OpenAFS] buildbot and packages
Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:18:42 -0400
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 9/15/2012 12:18 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> <verbiage snipped>
> Here's some code.
The test itself is probably fine but the custom licensing is not.
OpenAFS accepts IPL1.0, MIT, and Simple BSD. Pick one.
> Quick question: How many of these 1130 patchsets result in 'make check'=
> completing successfully?=20
Possibly none. OpenAFS cannot prioritize the efforts of contributors.
Nor can it require that all code, documentation and tests written for
or derived from OpenAFS are contributed upstream.
> How about instead of long rants on the mailing list, we all spend 15=20
> minutes thinking about a simple test that could go in 'make check'?
Please think about the audience you are targeting the request to because
it matters. If you are asking individuals then your target audience is
not the Top-10 contributor list as their time is paid for by others. If
you want individuals to contribute, then you will need to figure out how
to encourage those that do not regularly do so today to get involved.
If you are asking end user organizations, then requests on this mailing
list are unlikely to have much impact. I do not believe that many of
the decision makers that set organizational priorities read it.
If you are asking support contract organizations, their priorities and
staffing are driven by the support customers. If the support customers
ask that tests be written, then support engineer time will be spent on
writing tests. I have never received a support request for writing
tests or documentation or protocol standards.
If you are asking product companies, then the person responsible for
managing development timelines and budget are the target audience. The
determining factors I would evaluate are a cost-benefit analysis of the
work, the impact of performing the work on delivery dates, and
If you come to me with a request to fund unit test development I want to
see a work breakdown structure describing all of the tests to be
implemented, time/cost estimates for each test, and a benefit analysis
for each test. At the moment, no such proposal exists but when asked,
the back of the envelope feedback that is received is similar to Russ'
from yesterday (http://tinyurl.com/8msb8dv). The costs are very high,
there are benefits but not enough to prioritize writing tests above
Here is what I would suggest if you want to change my mind and those of
others that fund development resources. Develop a work breakdown
structure for the testing that you want to see implemented. Determine
estimates for time, cost and benefit. Submit the proposal to this list
or privately. If it is deemed that there is sufficient value to all or
part of the work, it might be possible to obtain funding or development
resources to implement it.
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----