Linux Kernel Gets Fully Automated Test
An anonymous reader writes "The Linux Kernel is now getting automatically tested within 15 minutes of a new version being released, across a variety of hardware and the results are being published for all to see. Martin Bligh
announced this yesterday, running on top of IBM's internal test automation system. Maybe this will enable the kernel developers to keep up with the 2.6 kernel's rapid pace of change. Looks like it caught one new problem with last night's build already ..."
But it can't catch everything - the 1394 bus was screwed in 2.6.11. There are a lot of regressions that show up - and even that healthy cluster of systems will not show every problem.
Sound issues? Older network and SCSI cards? There are a lot of drivers that break, and no one notices it because there is nobody with the hardware testing the -rc or -mm kernels.
Wouldn't it make more sense to package these tools for someone to install on their collection of oddball equipment, and assist in the debugging/testing?
Where's the ARM, MIPS, and SH?
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
Bitkeeper.
Sounds like the solution to this problem is clear. Always use the second to latest kernel released. Stay away from the new one untill it's fully tested to your satisfaction.
Life is not for the lazy.
...the cross-platform, cross-hardware part? Setting up one machine to build automatically is easy. Setting up a whole bunch of them (and all unique, read administration nightmare) and tie them together to a system, that's quite a bit of work.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Release" in the open source world has a broader sense than in commercial software. In open source not all "released" versions are meant for general public consumption; they include unstable versions targeted mostly at developers, so that severe isues can be detected and patched quickly.
Taking this into account, I believe this is meant to catch bugs mainly in nightly (unstable) builds and release candidates, not in "final" versions (those should, at least in theory, have no serious bugs left around as the latter have already been eradicated from release candidates).
Score: i, Imaginary
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Reliable, repeatable testing is a great way to prevent fixes in one area from causing bugs in another. When I fix A, I generally only test A manually. I don't test every other conceivable code path, even though my fix for A might well impact them.
An automated test for B will catch regressions caused by my fix in A, making it harder to backslide. Backsliding is very expensive because bugs are far removed from their cause. If an automated test sees that changes in A caused a regression in B, the cause is immediately obvious.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Ummm...
If everyone did this, the newest kernels would never get tested. I think it is important that we have a diverse range of users using new, almost new, and older but well tested kernels.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
It was a joke, dumbass.
If you're going to used fixed-length buffers, though, at least use sNprintf!
My other car is first.
Current 2.6x very kernels unstable? Linux does not have any stable version? Obviously you havn't even used Linux in the last year or so.
Testing a product to make it better doesn't mean the product is bad to start with. Some code has higher aspirations than that.