Re: Experiments with npf on -current

["Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost>]

> interest of progress.Remember that this is -CURRENT, where things like
> this are *supposed* to happen?


As for me, I was glad Darren pointed this out. (In fact, I was quite 
surprised when I read the followup acknowledging known buggy code living 
in -current.)

-current should not have broken code (note that current-users list now 
has automated complaints on failures).

We should strive for a higher standard. We should encourage and maybe 
better require that we provide unit tests and/or behaviour tests with 
commits too.  (Was there ever a public core announcement about when code 
is added or bug fixed, that the developer should consider adding ATF 
tests or regression tests for it?) (I'd like to extend this to include 
security audit tests as applicable, documentation requirements, and peer 
review requirements too.)

We should suggest and even force that code known to be broken to be 
reverted. (Well I think this is already true, but not happening?) (It 
will be easier when we have a better revision control so many can work 
easier on branches.)