Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

[Mark Mitchell]

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:

> That is exactly my point. Mark chastises people for talking about
> testing, implying that we are lazy for not providing patches.

> I don't deny that reality. Mark seems to feel that fixing bugs is as
> easy as testing and bug reporting, and it is not. 

Actually, I don't agree with either of the statements ascribed to me, 
and if I conveyed that sentiment, I apologize.  To be clear, I think 
testing, automated and otherwise, and bug reporting, and bug-mastering 
are all very valuable.  My point was simply that once you have the tests 
and bug reports, someone has to fix the bugs before the users see benefit.

CodeSourcery struggles with exactly the same problem; we have worked 
hard to set up some test automation for our ARM builds, and it's working 
well, but we're not (yet!) as disciplined as we want to be about 
analyzing and fixing the failures.  I think the reason is that the 
testing is something you work hard to set up once, and then, roughly 
speaking, you just sit back and let the computer work hard forever; the 
analysis/fixing is an ongoing project that requires people to work hard 
on a regular basis.

Once I get my automated GCC bug-fixing bot finished I am going to have 
an easy life.  Unfortunately, I use GCC to build the bot, and I'm 
getting an ICE in reload...

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304