|
From: | Alex Perez |
Subject: | Re: quality assurance (was: Re: GNUstep Base 1.11.0) |
Date: | Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:02:56 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) |
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Am Samstag, 23.07.05 um 19:29 Uhr schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald:On 2005-07-23 16:11:30 +0100 Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@hamburg.de> wrote:Am Samstag, 23.07.05 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Benoit Astruc:Hello,I just tried to compil GNUstep Base 1.11.0, freshly download from GNUstep http) and I found that there is an error GSXML.m at line 5 142 :request = [tequest initWithURL: [NSURL URLWithString: connectionURL]]; should be request = [request initWithURL: [NSURL URLWithString: connectionURL]]; I suppose.Maybe it's corrected in CVS but it seems quite bad to have such error in the last stable version.IIRC the odd minor release number (11 in 1.11.0) points out that this is an unstable release of GNUstep. But nevertheless I think it is a bad sign that this kind of a bug (doesn't compile) could creep into a *release* of GNUstep. And even worse, it would not have been detected if Benoit would not have built this special configuration. The bug has gone unnoticed for a long time, it has been introduced with: http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gnustep/gnustep/core/base/ Source/Additions/GSXML.m.diff?r1=1.78&r2=1.79 on Sat Mar 12 17:38:18 2005 annotated with "Patch to port GSXMLRPC to MacOSX" which tells me the submitter did *not* test his patch before committing. Otherwise he would have experienced what Benoit experienced. Please don't get me wrong here. I don't want to do finger pointing because of a small bug that only occurs in border cases. My issue is something else: While we keep fixing things here while inadvertently destroying things there. This shows that we could need some sort of quality assurance in our development process. Otherwise GNUstep will never become really mature. There are several things we could do in this regard (all stolen from the GCC team)CVS check-ins:- require at least a compile test before things get checked in (this would catch this sort of bugs)- peer review of patches to be checked in- do a regression test before checking in things (needs test cases, see below)bug fixes: - write test cases that prove a bug is fixed releases:- create a CVS branch (not just a tag) for each release (this helps to insure that no new bugs are introduced in bugfix releases (caused by new features added meanwhile)) - maintain release branches for a while, at least until the next stable release (and port bugfixes back to mainline of course) - create a series of release candidates before actually doing the release some of those are very complex (peer review comes to my mind here) others not. I think we should at least require some of themWhat do you think?Well ... all those things are nice to have, but they are obviously of varying cost/benefit ratios.None of them caught this bug (and most of them are in routine use in varying degrees) ... because the sad fact is that nobody had this particular setup ... realistically there is no way to catch bugs in unusual configurations because people won't have the machines/operating systems or resources to change machine/OS/configuration etc, so you have to adopt one of two approaches ...1. reduce all the options/configurations to a minimal set such that they can be properly tested/supported by the core developers.. 2. accept that the odd options/configurations won't get tested except when people who need to use them try them out.I think we generally prefer the second approach, but there is always a balance struck between the two extremes.Personally, I think that branching is more overhead than it's worth, but that regression testing is good, which is why that I wrote the regression testing framework we've been using up till now, and support the move to the latest one (because it's easier for ObjC programmers to write tests for).Branching is good in the way that we can point users of GNUstep to a bugfix release if they happen to encounter a bug in a GNUstep release instead of saying: "use the CVS version" which turned into some sort of standard reply in the case of a bug. That would give us greater freedom on changing things in the CVS while still having something useable for the users. This would also result in applications developed against a certain release instead of have an application requiring the CVS because a necessary bugfix is in there.Think about your use-pattern of GCC: do you use the CVS or weekly snapshot version of GCC or do you use GCC 3.3.6 or GCC 3.4.4 because the later are a lot more mature than the first two? People don't want always live on the bleeding edge.And in turn this could improve the perception of GNUstep. I spoke to several Cocoa-developers who tried to use GNUstep (after I am told them to do so). The common response was that every time something else is broken, including things which already were working, which annoyed them a lot and was leading to the conclusion: "GNUstep is just a hobbyists project"I don't think that a test on all platforms/configurations is reasonable before a checkin ... that's just not ever going to be practical. I do agree that a test of the standard gnu/linux build is needed ... but I think everyone does that.You say 'which tells me the submitter did *not* test his patch before committing'If I remember correctly, I committed that patch on behalf of the submitter, and I'm sure he tested the code before he sent it to us ... as he was using it himself. The fact is that accidental alterations to files/patches do occur between testing and being submitted/committed ... this particular single character change probably was a result of viewing in an editor for a visual check. I don't think it suggests that the submitter was bad/sloppy in the processes he used.So ... my vote for priorities would be ..1. ask people to volunteer to test the odd configurations they have the machines for. If we had a list of people who actuyally used the less popular hardware, operating systems, and configuration/build options, we could do an email reminder asking them to test the latest cvs code just before a release (even better if they could do automated builds/tests on a daily basis, I think someone was working on that)How about using the donation money GNUstep got for buying some testing machines which would go into the same place as the GNUstep web servers are and could then be used for testing/developing GNUstep onto some more "exotic" platforms: Some *BSD, some Solaris boxen (be it x86 or SPARC), a Mac (Mac mini should be enough), maybe some HPUX box should be enough for the start. Those machines don't necessarily need to be new hardware, I guess we could get them used somewhere for cheap. Then put them online with special ssh accounts (maybe some VNC too) for the core devs and there you go: compilation and testing is possible remotely for those who need it.
In a word, no. I think that would be a huge waste of the money, because we can get access to these kinds of exotic machines through places like sourceforge et al. who have large compile farms for EXACTLY THIS REASON.
Why is their offering insufficient for us? (Seriously)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |