On 03/03/2011 02:35 AM, Platonides wrote:
Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Huib Laurenssterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
I am happy to mark things as tested if that helps out :-)
But I need to say the trunk seems to be more instable... I use trunk for 3 production sites and its updated every morning... and seems to break every two days... Normally it would break once in the month...
I'd like to add something to the great suggestions that have already come in. Since you're already doing daily updates and seeing the breakage, you already know within 50-60 revisions of where the breakage is likely to be. It may only take 6-7 extra checkouts to narrow it down to a specific revision doing a binary search through the previous day's checkins, even without an informed guess on which file or function is the likely suspect and including extensions. If you narrow it down to just core (not extensions), that's roughly 20 checkins a day, so 4-5 extra checkouts should do the trick. Any little bit of debugging like this is greatly appreciated!
That would be nice, of course. But we shouldn't demand to debug the problem to people which is already doing us a favour by detecting them. Just a bug report like: "Foo broke in last 24h" "Updating from r12345 to r54321 the foo links are now like bar." would be extremely useful, as that bug will be easy to resolve just in time (even if it's a revert), as opposed to handling a bug which has been there for a long time. Those 'fast' bugs are also good candidates for the weekly sprints.
Agreed. Also, if logging in to bugzilla and filing a report seems like too much hassle, just dropping in at #mediawiki and asking "Hey, who broke feature X since yesterday?" is often enough. (Of course, you should still follow up with a bug report if no-one comes up with an immediate solution, but IME pretty often someone does.)