Christopher D. Clausen wrote: > I file bug reports (although I haven't had any service crashes > recently.) Everything I filed against the Windows client (and possibly > the Solaris server, but still testing) seems to be fixed in the latest > fc.
Chris, you are one of the rare few who do test the Windows releases
and file bug reports. It is good to know that the issues you have
come across have been fixed. The problem that I am trying to address is
how do I know that (a) previous issues have been fixed; (b) that
new ones were not created; and (c) that existing ones simply have not
been reported.
If I fail to receive a bug report from you, does that mean that:
(a) you have tested the build and that all is good
(b) you have not tested the build at all
(c) you have not tested the build on a platform that would
experience a problem
I am imagining something a bit more formal. In fact, speaking of web
design work, perhaps what we need is a web form checklist that can be
easily filled out as a report.
* OpenAFS release
* OS platform
* Hardware architecture
* A list of tests to perform with success and failure options.
If a test fails, then a text field for inputing a description
of the failure.
If there was another page that could be dynamically updated so people
could see what combinations of <OpenAFS release, OS, architecture>
had been tested, then people could jump in to fill in the gaps.
> I can (and have been trying to as often as possible) test clients on
> Windows 2003 Server (SP1 and SP2 beta x86) as they are released. I do
> not currently have any 64-bit OSes running nor do I have any machines
> running Windows XP or Windows 2000. If no one else has the time, I can
> setup test systems in a VM and make sure a basic install works, but I
> would not be actively using software in these VMs. I would assume that
> testing in actual environments would be preferable.
Testing in actual environments would be preferable in some cases.
However, VMs are certainly nice for the ability to perform snapshots.
Especially when you want to be able to test the behavior of a clean
install.
> Also, I typically use the Windows cmd prompt myself and don't notice GUI
> issues (which is why I didn't notice that the explorer extention was
> broken until a week ago. Its been broken on my installs for several
> months.)
If there was an item on a checklist that asked "Does the AFS Shell
Extension menu appear for XXX?" would you test it for each release?
Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
