To be clear, more who is willing to commit to testing should we go this

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:41 AM Nate McCall <> 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 <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Haddad <>
>> 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.

Reply via email to