| 1 |
On 4 October 2013 17:03, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> but even what you're describing |
| 4 |
> above won't cover _everything_, and this is mostly what I'm saying. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yeh, its a given that it won't cover /all/ scenarios. Its obviously not |
| 9 |
intended to /replace/ arch testers, just supplementary context. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Also, something else that I forgot to mention, is the real benefit you see |
| 12 |
with automated test reporting, is the turn around time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Within 24-48 hours of the changes hitting the rsync mirrors, you'll have a |
| 15 |
batch of results showing you if the recent change broke the build or not. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And that could greatly improve the effective stability of (~ARCH) for those |
| 18 |
who use it, as long as devs check the report stats. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And the effective stability of (~ARCH) increases the rate at which (~ARCH) |
| 21 |
can afford to move, and increased fluidity and movement there would be |
| 22 |
rather helpful. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Kent |
Archives