[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.st
From: |
Dr. David Alan Gilbert |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:32:28 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) |
* Halil Pasic (address@hidden) wrote:
>
>
> On 10/18/2016 03:54 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> > I think I understand the motivation. Does that mean
> >> > you are not supposed to expose a bug via a test? I might
> >> > be able to demonstrate that something is wrong but unable
> >> > to fix the problem myself (time constraints).
> >> >
> >> > How was I supposed to do this?
> > You might add a test but leave it commented out, or just post
> > the test but not for merging so that it only gets merged
> > after someone fixes the bug.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> As stated by the accompanying message:
>
> "The idea is to remove .start support and this patch should
> be reverted, as soon this happens, or even better just
> dropped. If however dropping the support for .start encounters
> resistance, this patch should prove useful in an unexpected
> way."
>
> the patch is not intended for a merge. My preferred way of dealing
> with this is to just pick (merge) the first and the last patch of the
> series. The second patch is just to prove that we have a problem,
> and it's effect is immediately reverted by the third patch as a
> preparation for the forth one which removes the tested feature altogether.
>
> In my opinion the inclusion of a commented out test makes even less
> sense if the tested feature is intended to be removed by the next
> patch in the series.
>
> I think I was not clear enough when stating that this patch is
> not intended for merging. Is there an established way to do
> this?
I don't think there's any point in posting it like that as part
of a patch series; posting it as a separate test that fails or
something like that; but I don't think I've ever seen it done
like that inside a patch series where you expect some of it
to be picked up.
Dave
>
> Cheers,
> Halil
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] remove unused VMSTateField.start, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: Add vBuffer test, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2016/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2016/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/18
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken,
Dr. David Alan Gilbert <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/19
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Dr. David Alan Gilbert, 2016/10/20
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/20
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] migration: drop unused VMStateField.start, Halil Pasic, 2016/10/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/4] Revert "tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken", Halil Pasic, 2016/10/18
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] remove unused VMSTateField.start, no-reply, 2016/10/18