[Gluster-devel] good job on fixing heavy hitters in spurious regressions

[Shyam]

On 05/08/2015 08:16 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
>>> Here are some of the things that I can think of: 0) Maintainers
>>> should also maintain tests that are in their component.
>>
>> It is not possible for me as glusterd co-maintainer to 'maintain'
>> tests that are added under tests/bugs/glusterd. Most of them don't
>> test core glusterd functionality.  They are almost always tied to a
>> particular feature whose implementation had bugs in its glusterd code.
>> I would expect the test authors (esp. the more recent ones) to chip
>> in.
>
> Good point.  Nobody should be penalized for having code that everyone
> else touches (or rewarded for having code that nobody dares to).
> First responsibility for debugging a regression-test failure lies
> with the owner of the patch that failed.  If they determine that the
> failure is spurious - which is easy if it's already on a list - then
> responsibility falls to the owner of the test.  Either should be able
> to draw on the expertise of others in the group, but that doesn't
> shift *responsibility*.  Only when a problem has been tracked down to
> a particular piece of production code should responsibility move
> again - either to the person whose earlier patch caused the breakage,
> or to the subsystem maintainer.

+1, could not have said it better, but chipping in my vote for the 
order, owner of patch first -> owner of test -> maintainer of module, 
with the said responsibility in place.

>
> Mostly this is just common sense.  Perhaps the change that's needed
> is to make the fixing of likely-spurious test failures a higher
> priority than adding new features.  That has to be reflected not
> only in Bugzilla, but also in how we schedule individual developers'
> time and evaluate their progress toward goals.
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>