[ogg-dev] [Bulk] Re: Make check failure

[Monty Montgomery]

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Neil Leathers <neil.leathers at rogers.com> wrote:
> So if I understand the libogg development practises correctly.
>
>>> (r17098 | gmaxwell | 2010-03-29 16:35:11 +1100 (Mon, 29 Mar 2010))
>
> Gregory Maxwell checked in a change ...
>
>>> I've just grabbed a copy of SVN head for libogg and 'make check'
>>> is failing:
>
> ... which broke the test suite ...
>
>> If the new function stays it will likely need a test case. I'm not
>> going to write one until the decision is final that we'll go that
>> route.
>
> ... without testing the change (to demonstrate it works, or is useful, or ... anything) ...

It was discussed in IRC and checked into SVN to give the possibility
of wider evaluation.  Greg also cleared the change with me personally
before checking it in.

>
>> As far as controversial goes, I probably should have put it in scare
>> quotes. The kind of controversial I'm talking about is the name of the
>> function I added (I don't like _fill() much myself, but nothing better
>> seemed obvious)  or the decision to add a somewhat kludgey additional
>> input function rather than break the ABI and add a one shot control.
>
> ... with misleading check in comments.

"Add a 'ogg_stream_pageout_fill' function to allow smart applications
with delay
sensitive flushing to produce big pages. Increase the default minimum fill amoun
t to 8 based on latency measurements with actual files. These changes may be con
troversial but since we've recently had a release I thought there would be no ha
rm in getting them into the repository for discussion."

That's pretty clear and accurate.

>
>> In this case, I didn't update the test case while making the change.
>>
>> Xiphmont left the tree in exactly the same state after making the
>> change to pack 4 frames, this was fixed in r17039.  As far as where
>> changes are made— we have _releases_ for the purpose of providing
>> stable code, though because the norm around here is to have a mostly
>> working trunk I never would have committed a change which could
>> reasonably have been expect to cause any real breakage.
>
> ... it is normal to break the test suite and patch it later.

It is normal to put probationary changes for wider testing on HEAD
between releases.  It is not normal to put changes on HEAD that are
known to be broken.

Monty