Any problem with a 1.8MB blob in the tree? Re: Please try to upgrade an alpha10 when enforcing new rules in samdb

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Sun Aug 15 16:10:03 MDT 2010

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 17:01 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:39:20 +0400
> Matthieu Patou <mat at> wrote:
> > I would argue against doing it time to time as we might push code that 
> > will one more time break upgradeprovision.
> Every time we touch any code we might break something. That's why we
> need tests. Not arguing here.
> > The test itself is rather quick (~1/2 minutes).
> That's per provision. If we need to test more of these, this will add
> up. I think a regular make test should stay below 5 minutes, or nobody
> will run it for every check in. Having a test run that runs all tests
> on the build box would be good, but even right now make test really
> slows you down if you try to run it for a handful of paches. Making
> this worse will just cause less people to run the tests.

This is a valid point, but adding 30seconds to our current 60min run
isn't much of a sacrifice.  We can gain much more than that back if we
sort out inefficiencies in ldb, or someone makes less fsync() calls
(painful on ext4 in particular) for example. 

We already added similar extra times when we started to test the various
functional levels. 

Andrew Bartlett
Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list