etiquette for new failing test cases, followed by fix

Greg Troxel <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.devel.userlevel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
I have found a serious bug in reqmuo(3), and a fix in FreeBSD, validated
by regression tests in proj and a hand-written test.  The problem exists
in current and 10, and surely in 9 but I haven't checked.

We currently have no remquo test.  I've written one, stealing from
tests/lib/libm/t_sin, and it shows some failing output.

I'm about to (assuming each step is ok)

  - do a build and then anita run of current with my new test, and
    without the fix

  - commit the test

  - apply the FreeBSD fix locally, and build/anita

  - commit the FreeBSD fix

  - apply a further fix locally, and build/anita

  - commit that

  - request pullups of the test and fix to 10

  - probably not request pullups to 9, unless someone asks for them,
    since 9 is crufty and really everyone on 9 should be upgrading.

  - consider remquof and remquol after all this settles

Is this reasonable?  It will show an increased failing test for a bit,
but the test really does fail, and my impression is that the xfail
scheme is about keeping known-failing not-getting-fixed tests from
obscuring "we just had a regression", which a few days of this won't do.

(Absent objections, I'll proceed as above.)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.