| 1 |
On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 17:22:03 +0200 |
| 2 |
Toralf Förster <toralf@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> A lot of findings did appear immediately. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Your stats roughly coincide with my own, but I test only the |
| 7 |
intersection of changes that mention "perl" somewhere ( primarily as an |
| 8 |
effort to make it so I can get perl stuff in good enough condition that |
| 9 |
we can use the assumption of passing so we can to full-tree regression |
| 10 |
tests against development releases of Perl, to minimise the amount of |
| 11 |
release-panic we suffer, and to get data to make upstream more aware of |
| 12 |
what is getting broken in advance of it happening ) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
3915/4252 -> 92.07% ( 337 todo, 360 broken (8.47%), 92 to report) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Also, tip: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Instead of doing |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
LISTGENERATOR | xargs |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Do: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
LISTGENERATOR > file ; xargs -a file |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Benefits: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- You can look at your todo list manually if you have to |
| 30 |
- STDIN doesn't get closed/redirected for portage |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The latter is pretty handy, as there's occasionally packages that |
| 33 |
behave differently if they're attached somewhere to a real human input |
| 34 |
source. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Some don't prompt for input, but make assumptions about who is |
| 37 |
watching based on the ability to read from STDIN ( specifically, asking |
| 38 |
if STDIN is a TTY or a PIPE ). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Others may have devious code that expects interactive behaviour, with a |
| 41 |
fallback that only takes place if STDIN is closed/not a TTY. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
TL;DR: Exposes different kinds of fun bugs. |
Archives