From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RV7AM-0000il-D0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:47:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0A9D21C254; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:46:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F51021C031 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkaq10 with SMTP id q10so10561225bka.40 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:45:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DSMLcV0gW5GBFX0lKB8SI4QfFZgFsd1U+V9PSCRceL8=; b=qVJ2GJpnrGIKra7ALgfZ3UpxSUJRn3OvGMwC7nBUF86BE3Zd6Gm3COtOKXiP83Q8Cg 0jWwxEbjsDHoxeEhn9ajkcl0snZbQLfG1h7I7xsCa83CZAIF4ShZTtbo+IfzNbrdB4N6 YK1dWVxIv0bXRpXz7pqac9tykbxaMIDoJbJZU= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.81.141 with SMTP id zy13mr46408018bkb.50.1322509521911; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.14.7 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:45:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4ED28F6A.7090606@alyf.net> <1322483386.66469.4.camel@stretch> <4ED3BDD4.4060704@binarywings.net> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:45:21 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6? From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5d8f70a0-ca5e-4af7-adec-0ca9d23cc8f0 X-Archives-Hash: f1c7919b1f17e3242d23cdca0e64f7ee On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote: >> >> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: >>> >>> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: >>>>> >>>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on >>>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and >>>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expecte= d >>>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either. >>>>> >>>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an >>>>> hour >>>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working >>>>> state. >>>>> >>>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :) >>>> >>>> Sorry to add more to the whining but... >>>> >>>> Yes, you are in the testing tree. =C2=A0Yes, as a member of testing, *= you* >>>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test >>>> things, break them, and report bugs. >>> >>> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. =C2=A0That = means >>> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it. >>> >>> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case ther= e >>> are problems". =C2=A0It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works beca= use we >>> didn't even try it once". >> >> Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system >> testing you propose? > > About 2 minutes? =C2=A0Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting= the > machine. =C2=A0There you go :-/ That's a facetious answer, and you're purposely only examining a tiny piece of the testing surface. Hindsight is 20/20, though only if you're lucky. Perhaps they've never seen this type of failure before, and they could add a single test to whatever unit test suite they may be using. Perhaps that's an improvement they can make going forward. To fully test OpenRC, you'd want a two-stage testing harness. The outer stage would generate Gentoo VMs with every plausibly-relevant USE flag permutation crossed against as many automatically-generated permutations of OpenRC configuration as could be considered plausibly encountered. For each generated VM, spin it up. Watch for some kind of watchdog "hey, I booted successfully!" indicator. Then spin up a testing harness *inside* the VM to ensure all services started and behave correctly. Dump a report to the vmhost detailing that everything went well (or didn't), and hibernate the VM. vmhost looks at the report and decides whether or not to keep the saved VM state. That's an extraordinary amount of testing to do. And that's what I see argued as what ~arch is for; instead of having a script whip up and test hundreds of virtual machines, people running ~arch do that testing. Gentoo devs get reports for the features and combinations that people actually *use*, and can spend less time fixing features nobody is using. (And it's obvious none of the OpenRC devs are using parallel boot themselves, or they would have caught this. Perhaps that's why it's experimental; nobody who actively uses that feature is keeping up with HEAD and offering patches.) --=20 :wq