Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: regression testing | From | nbecker@fred ... | Date | 22 Mar 2001 08:47:27 -0500 |
| |
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard B Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> writes:
Richard> On 22 Mar 2001 nbecker@fred.net wrote: >> Hi. I was wondering if there has been any discussion of kernel >> regression testing. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to depend >> on human testers to verify every change didn't break something? >> >> OK, I'll admit I haven't given this a lot of thought. What I'm >> wondering is whether the user-mode linux could help here (allow a way >> to simulate controlled activity). >> -
The problem I see, based on reading this list, is that the testing is not so thorough as you say. First of all, do we really know how many people test the pre-relase kernels? How about which features they actually test?
In principle, we could find out how much test coverage there is.
The problem with an army of testers, is that after an individual has gone through the build/install/screw-around-with-it process a few hundred times, it starts to get a bit repetitive. They start to get sloppy and haphazard regarding what they test or whether they even try out xxx-pre<put_big_number_here> at all. If we could automate at least some basic testing that would be a big win. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |