It is hard for me to answer such long letters :))) >> Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo I'm not sure what is the status of demo.dataved.ru, it allows "self registration" and it is up 24/7, but you are right, there were no "Call to test". But I was sure My emails like "people I'm going to release, please stop me if it is too early" is sort of call to test it and let me know....
I agree on "automated testing", I promise I'll add out tests to the build (I forgot about it, will create JIRA issue). since we will be on Wicket we can finally start writing tests on our UI similar to their tests (never tried that) I do like automated tests, it is just not my favorite task :) according to our (and Apache guide) http://openmeetings.apache.org/ReleaseGuide.html " *Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases.* " On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya) > => where did they perform the tests? I thought we would invite the > community to help us testing. > > *1) there were no issues reported by users* > Yeah, well how should any user do a test if there is no public demo? I also > did not hear any call on the user mailing list that users are invited to > test. > *2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months* > I agree on that. But our past agreement was more like "dev complete => > release". That model will not work for our future. > And I want to make sure that everybody involved understands that. > > IMHO our lack of automated testing and the need for a manual test / click > through of all the features is one of the biggest issues in our current > project. > For example I do not understand why the JUnit test for the backup import > was never integrated into the Nightly builds? I mean all that work that > you've put into that. Simply nobody uses it now. > It would be such a nice thing to wake up every morning and see what test > fails and what to look at? I guess there are only a couple of bits missing > to get the backup import running automated but I don't understand what > keeps us away from doing that? > > Similar for the rest of the Junit tests. Of couse a good amount of the > tests are just outdated. > But if there would be at least a minimal subset of tests that run > automated, that would be an improment by 100%, cause at the moment, just > zero tests run automated. > This will become even more interesting with Wicket, where you can test a > lot of the UI stuff with simple JUnit tests. > The manual work that Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya and anybody else > involved has done for 2.1 > => Will need to happen with every release. 2.1.1, 2.2, ... > An approach like "A feature that has been tested in the release 2.1 needs > no more testing in a release 2.1.1 (or 2.2)". I will not agree on that in > any sense. Every release does need a full test. > And IMHO this approach will not scale at all with the growing number of > committers. > > It would be great if we start thinking about what we will do to improve > that in the future? > > The tools are basically there but it seems like nobody involved in the > project believes that automated tests make sense (except me) ? > > From @Alexey I know that he believes only additions to the feature add > value to the end product. And it seems like "testing" is not a "feature" > that adds any value to the end user from that perspective. > So my questions would be: Do we really want to do the same amount of manual > click-through tests that we do now with every release ?! > I mean: Am I the only person sick of downloading every release and clicking > through every feature 30 minutes to give a "+1" ?! > > Sebastian > > > 2013/3/24 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > > > We did extensive testing of 2.1 (Alexey, Artyom, Irina, Vasya, Yuliya) > > additional causes are: > > 1) there were no issues reported by users > > 2) We better release 2.1.1 or 2.2 in a month than wait another 6 months > > > > ps Apach Wicket has 1 month release cycle .... I believe we should have > 2-3 > > month > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:20 AM, [email protected] < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > I was wondering if the testing phase that I thought we have agreed on > > > already happen? > > > Or is there another reason why you initiated this RC? > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/23 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings > 2.1.0 > > > RC3 > > > > > > > > RC2 was rejected due to broken audio/video setup panel > > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme: > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/README > > > > > > > > Full Changelog: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/CHANGELOG > > > > > > > > Release artefacts: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/ > > > > > > > > Tag:http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1RC3/ > > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using C467526E): > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1/rc3/KEYS > > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > > > My vote is +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > WBR > > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sebastian Wagner > > > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > > http://www.webbase-design.de > > > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WBR > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > [email protected] > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
