performance testing rawhide.

[Jarod Wilson]

On Sep 24, 2010, at 12:34 AM, Kyle McMartin <kyle at mcmartin.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:24:54PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>> I dunno. at this point, I'm torn over whether to keep pushing in this direction.
>> The spec is already getting ugly with all those damn %defines.
>> 
> 
> If everyone is going to end up running -nodebug, and we're going to keep
> asking them to reproduce on the debug variant, what's the point of not
> just continuing as we're doing now?
> 
> Having people flip flop between -nodebug and default between release and
> not is just silly, we might as well just use -nodebug by default all the
> time. (I mean, really, the amount of useful stuff that -debug has caught
> versus the sheer amount of noise it generates is just ridiculous.)
> 
> Alternately, since we now have no-frozen-rawhide, maybe we just
> institute a policy where rawhide runs with -debug on permanently, and we
> flip the switch when we branch on released kernels. 90% of the benefits
> from -debug will get caught then, and the other 10% wouldn't've got
> caught anyway since the bugs won't even be found until three weeks after
> release when there's now a couple hundred thousand people running it.

I think I'm with Kyle here, leave rawhide always debug and go split at branch time. Competent bug reporters will happily grab kernel-debug if required, perf people won't test until branch time most of the time anyway, I suspect. Less people running a debug-enabled kernel without realizing it (eg, F14 base kernels up until earlier today) could help SNR too.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at wilsonet.com