Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:49:24 -0400 (EDT) | From | Dave Wreski <> | Subject | Re: Re[2]: Kernel testing |
| |
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Seth M. Landsman wrote: > > I think that unless we come up with some ideas on how to implement this, > > we should drop it. > > Implementation isn't difficult. Read my idea about sticking > something in the rc.M file ...
This isn't what I meant. I meant just how are you going to write the application itself? I'm certatinly not deterring you from doing this, and it is a good idea whether it is done to work remotely or locally.
> Of course the testing suite will only be used by people who know > that they are using it, know what is being used and know what might > happen. I think it would be a wonderful idea to include some of the minor > tests, such as ensure system calls do what they should be doing as part of > the kernel suite (make test idea), but the stress tests are something > different.
I would expect it to be treated as an rpm that someone could download and install, not something we would hide from them. I would think a nice way to do it would be to use this program when you think you have a bug, or your kernel crashes..
Please, if this continues take it offline, before the developers get pissed.
Dave
| |