Hannu Krosing wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Claiming that it doesn't require an increased level of testing is
> > somewhere between ridiculous and irresponsible.
> We should have at least _some_ platforms (besides Win32) that we could
> clain to have run thorough test on.
> I suspect that RedHat does some (perhaps even severe) testing for
> RHAS/RHDB, but I don't know of any other thorough testing.
> Or should reliability testing actually be something left for commercial
> entities ?

The testing has to be done before we make anything available as an
official release. As of now, the status of this project is at the
beginning of incorporating a 7.2.1 based patch into CVS HEAD.

Asking for exzessive tests at this stage of development and (ab)using
the absence of 100% proof of rock solid reliability as an excuse to
reject the entire aproach would be ridiculous.


# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to