Jeremy Hylton wrote:
>> When the slave suffers a real failure due to a backwards
>> incompatibility, it
>> will take a developer of the application to figure out what it was
>> that broke
>> the application's tests.
>>
>> So while I think it's a great idea, I also think it will need significant
>> support from the application developers in debugging any buildbot
>> failures to
>> really make it work.
>
> These buildbots should run the tests from stable, released versions of
> external packages, assuming that those packages don't ship releases
> with failing tests. If you ran the test suite for a Zope release and
> had a test failure, I think there would be a reasonable expectation
> that it was a Python bug.
Definitely, but there's a difference between "bug that broke Python's own unit
tests" and "change to a behaviour that package X depended on".
It's the latter cases that the external buildbots would be looking for - and
while some of those will be shallow enough that the regression is obvious from
the unit test error message and the recent Python checkins, the non-obvious
ones will require a collaborative resolution.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
