To be clear, more who is willing to commit to testing should we go this route.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:41 AM Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok. So who's willing to test 4.0 on June 2nd? Let's start a sign up. > > We (tlp) will put some resources on this via going through some canned > scenarios we have internally. We aren't in a position to test data validity > (yet) but we can do a lot around cluster behavior. > > Who else has specific stuff they are willing to do? Even if it's just > tee'ing prod traffic, that would be hugely valuable. > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:15 AM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> >> wrote: >> >> > It sounds to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) like Jeff is arguing >> that >> > releasing 4.0 in 2 months isn't worth the effort of evaluating it, >> because >> > it's a big task and there's not enough stuff in 4.0 to make it >> worthwhile. >> > >> > >> More like "not enough stuff in 4.0 to make it worthwhile for the people I >> personally know to be willing and able to find the weird bugs". >> >> >> > If that is the case, I'm not quite sure how increasing the surface area >> of >> > changed code which needs to be vetted is going to make the process any >> > easier. >> >> >> It changes the interest level of at least some of the people able to >> properly test it from "not willing" to "willing". >> >> Totally possible that there exist people who are willing and able to find >> and fix those bugs, who just haven't committed to it in this thread. >> That's >> probably why Sankalp keeps asking who's actually willing to do the testing >> on June 2 - if nobody's going to commit to doing real testing on June 2, >> all we're doing is adding inconvenience to those of us who'd be willing to >> do it later in the year. >> >
