Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

In case you're not trolling: not really, not officially.

Unpopular features on less common architectures are frequently broken for large stretches of time, and go unnoticed until someone complains. Open source really exemplifies the squeaky wheel getting the grease, which is kind of sad.

Places where Linux is popular undoubtedly have their own internal private test suites, especially for features less popular on bleeding edge kernels (eg S390 arch support or Infiniband)

It would be hard to get any sort of good coverage with unit tests, too, but that shouldn't be a reason to avoid trying.




> It would be hard to get any sort of good coverage with unit tests, too, but that shouldn't be a reason to avoid trying.

Could a large but spotty unit test suite inspire false confidence that led to be being less careful about signing off on changes and thus decrease overall quality?


Could it? Sure.

Of course, kernel devs were already confident enough to merge breaking code without the added confidence of a partial unit test suite in place.


It sort of depends on the area - eg. for filesystems there is xfstests: http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/cmds/xfstests.gi...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: