Re: [Xen-devel] [Notes for xen summit 2018 design session] Process changes: is the 6 monthly release Cadence too short, Security Process, ...

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [Notes for xen summit 2018 design 
session] Process changes: is the 6 monthly release Cadence too short, Security 
Process, ..."):
> I don’t really understand why you’re more worried about a test
> corrupting a backup partition or LVM snapshot, than of a test
> corrupting a filesystem even when the test actually passed.  I don’t
> have the same experience you do, but it seems like random stuff left
> over from a previous test — even if the test passes — would have
> more of a chance of screwing up a future test than some sort of
> corruption of an LVM snapshot, and even less so a backup partition.

The difference is that these are tests *in the same flight*.  That
means they're testing the same software.

If test A passes, but corrupts the disk which is detected by test B
because the host wasn't wiped in between, causing test B to fail, then
that is a genuine test failure - albeit one whose repro conditions are
complicated.  I'm betting that this will be rare enough not to matter.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel