Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

> [root@linux php-4.0.5]# gcc -v > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/pgcc-2.95.2.1/specs > gcc version pgcc-2.95.2.1 20001224 (release) `pgcc´ is an experimental compiler. Such issues are to be expected with this kind of software. For a production system, I'd rec

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

At 19:28 21-6-2001 +0200, Sascha Schumann wrote: >On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Wico de Leeuw wrote: > > > Hiya > > > > i get this error when doing make under apache 1.3.20 > > A more interesting info would be the output of "gcc -v". this error is for php-4.0.5 and php-4.0.6 for apache 1.3.17 and 1.3.

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Wico de Leeuw wrote: > Hiya > > i get this error when doing make under apache 1.3.20 A more interesting info would be the output of "gcc -v". - Sascha Experience IRCG http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/irc

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

Just built 4.0.6 on NT4 and tested with my code under IIS. No problems found. When I ran the test suite, there were a few errors, but I don't know whether or not these are expected on Win32. I've attached the output of the test. Cheers -- Phil Driscoll Warning: Undefined variable: ext_found

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

Hiya i get this error when doing make under apache 1.3.20 gcc -c -I../../os/unix -I../../include -DLINUX=22 -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6 -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/main -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/main -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/Zend -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/Zend -I/home/src/wico/php-4.0.6/

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

At 10:04 21/06/2001 +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote: >http://www.php.net/~andi/php-4.0.6.tar.gz *** Configured, compiled and ran under ten minutes using the instructions i posted yesterday for RC4. Yeahay ! Welcome to the world new release ;-) hellekin -- PHP Development Mailing List

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 Packaged!

4.0.6 built ok on Suse 7.1. Tested with my code (MySQL stuff mainly) and PhpMyAdmin. No problems found. Cheers -- Phil Driscoll -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the lis

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

tmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:16 PM Subject: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 > Andi wrote: > [snip] > > That was really a big disappointment as people did such a good job on the > > rele

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

> The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order > to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? Because they have enough time to make sure their software still works with the RC, but not enough time to wade through all the QA emails. :-) Mos

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 01:40:28PM -0600, Zak Greant wrote: > Perhaps we should just encourage the brave and foolhardy to run it on > a production machines. :) s/brave/mad/. That's what I have a test-machine for which runs RC's with apps used on our main-site being hit by scripts. True, it doesn

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On 2 May 2001 13:08:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andi Gutmans) wrote: >I suggest the following. Create one nice big diff with all of your fixes. >Mail it to the extension maintainers for double checking with cc: to >php-dev. If they don't reply in a reasonable time I'll apply the patch and >as

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> > >the com support is/was broken for 6 weeks... > > So the bug is not related to the big patch from phanto from a week ago? Well, I have a server with 4.0.4RC6 and all is happy.. so it was deffinately fine then! I didnt upgrade it to as I wasnt able (its actually a kinda live server but its n

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> >>> Wez Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/02/01 12:02PM >>> > get bash, sed, perl, awk and all those unix tools. I'm suggesting that > perhaps the test suite could be run using those tools on a win32 > platform. On 2001-05-02 18:09:07, "Matt White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there another te

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

I suggest the following. Create one nice big diff with all of your fixes. Mail it to the extension maintainers for double checking with cc: to php-dev. If they don't reply in a reasonable time I'll apply the patch and assume you know what you're doing :) Andi At 09:53 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Lars

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 22:55 02.05.2001 +0300, Andi Gutmans wrote: >At 09:52 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: >>At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>>I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that >>>wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 10:57 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >At 22:52 2/5/2001, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: >>At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>>I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that >>>wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if >>>bet

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 22:57 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >At 22:52 2/5/2001, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: >>At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>>I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that >>>wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if >>>betw

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 22:52 2/5/2001, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: >At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that >>wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if >>between the last PRC and the final release code got chan

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 09:52 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Daniel Beulshausen wrote: >At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that >>wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if >>between the last PRC and the final release code

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 10:46 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that >wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if >between the last PRC and the final release code got changed. >James put what I thought in clearer words

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 22:46 02.05.2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that >wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if >between the last PRC and the final release code got changed. the com support is/was broken for 6 weeks..

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On 2 May 2001 06:20:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zeev Suraski) wrote: >I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the >time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer >resources to fix bugs. I have tried to report bugs - even fixed 3 in the Interb

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

I think very much like James, that we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Ten RC's and twenty PRC's won't have done anything, if between the last PRC and the final release code got changed. James put what I thought in clearer words (and with much more passion :), I agree with every

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 22:38 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: >How about we stop this thread and invest all of this time in going over >the bugs database and fixing bugs? :) I'll drink to that :) -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands,

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Andi wrote: > At 01:16 PM 5/2/2001 -0600, Zak Greant wrote: [snip] > I don't think it's too realistic :) > I prefer having the php-general guys test it on their development machine's. Perhaps we should just encourage the brave and foolhardy to run it on a production machines. :) --za

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 19:54 02.05.2001 +0100, Phil Driscoll wrote: >Also for Windows testing it would help if someone who understands the test >system posts a step by step hand holding list of things to do to make it >work on Windows - it will then get used much more. you can now (start the tests|look at test resul

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

How about we stop this thread and invest all of this time in going over the bugs database and fixing bugs? :) We do spend too much time typing and not enough time resolving bugs... (me included sometimes). I think although not everyone agrees we do have more or less a concensus on: a) Being even

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 09:03:00PM +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > Matt McClanahan wrote: > > > I don't see inviting this wider audience as providing enough beneficial > > information to justify the work of clearing away the less useful > > reports. > > right now we invite this wider audience

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 01:16 PM 5/2/2001 -0600, Zak Greant wrote: >Andi wrote: >[snip] > > That was really a big disappointment as people did such a good job on the > > release cycle IMO. > > No doubt it shouldn't have slipped in. > > And if it doesn't get fixed soon we should revert to the old version of >the > > CO

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

>$keywords=explode(" ",$SearchString); > $q = new COM("ixsso.Query"); > $n = new COM("ixsso.Util"); > $q->Query = "@contents Server"; > $q->Catalog = "its"; > $q->SortBy = "rank[d]"; > $q->Columns = "DocTitle, vpath"; > $q->MaxRecords = 200; > $q->Query=$SearchString; > $n->A

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Andi wrote: [snip] > That was really a big disappointment as people did such a good job on the > release cycle IMO. > No doubt it shouldn't have slipped in. > And if it doesn't get fixed soon we should revert to the old version of the > COM module. How much testing is the QA team actually doi

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> Try php4/tests/testcom > OK, that 1 test doesnt work.. However the following does. Which is why I was asking for clarification. This following code is essential to me, however, I dont make word documents on the fly.. although I now hate everyone for giving me even more stupid ideas than I alr

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Matt McClanahan wrote: > I don't see inviting this wider audience as providing enough beneficial > information to justify the work of clearing away the less useful > reports. right now we invite this wider audience the day we release a 'release' and again and again we end up with a .pl1 i just

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

I think the key thing with RCs was touched on by James - we need to be complete bastards as to what's allowed in after RC1 otherwise every RC is really RC1, however human nature and available time means RCN (where N>1) gets less testing than RC1. Can we set karma levels on the RC branch such that

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 06:58:57PM +0100, James Moore wrote: > > >I would be very against this.. to me it seems silly, the current QA Team > > >will have to spend 90% of their time running through the (maybe > > hundreds) of > > >reports rather than testing. It makes more sense to me to try and a

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Try php4/tests/testcom Andi At 07:08 PM 5/2/2001 +0100, Liz wrote: > > This time this didnt work for the single reason Phanto was unresposible and > > commited a huge (700 line commit) to RC7 and DIDNT test it. I asked him (as > > I asked sascha too) to when we decided to have RC8 (I think I cc'

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 08:36 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >James Moore wrote: > > > If we announce PHP 4.0.6RC1 in X places then people will think oh 4.0.6 is > > released (remeber PHP users are incapable of reading anything more than > > about 10 words) lets use that; they then wont bother upgrading

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 06:58 PM 5/2/2001 +0100, James Moore wrote: > > You have tens of thousands of people testing releases today. What's the > > difference? > >The big difference is during a release process is the time scale. There are >likley to be more bugs in an RC as well as people reporting bugs more >rigerous

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, 2 May 2001, James Moore wrote: > > > >I would be very against this.. to me it seems silly, the current QA Team > > >will have to spend 90% of their time running through the (maybe > > hundreds) of > > >reports rather than testing. It makes more sense to me to try and attract > > >more peo

Re: [PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

James Moore wrote: > If we announce PHP 4.0.6RC1 in X places then people will think oh 4.0.6 is > released (remeber PHP users are incapable of reading anything more than > about 10 words) lets use that; they then wont bother upgrading when the real > 4.0.6 is released. This means we will start to

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> This time this didnt work for the single reason Phanto was unresposible and > commited a huge (700 line commit) to RC7 and DIDNT test it. I asked him (as > I asked sascha too) to when we decided to have RC8 (I think I cc'd the list) > to test his changes throughly as I would not have time due to

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> >I would be very against this.. to me it seems silly, the current QA Team > >will have to spend 90% of their time running through the (maybe > hundreds) of > >reports rather than testing. It makes more sense to me to try and attract > >more people who know what they are doing to the QA Team rat

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 06:34 PM 5/2/2001 +0100, James Moore wrote: > > >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > > I think it's enough to announce it on the PHP mailing list > > with a short > > > > explanation of what RC means. We don't want the whole world > > to download > > > the RC. > > > > > >i would like to spread the news

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

http://www.php.net/install its all there under the windows section.. why dont people read the manual?? - James > -Original Message- > From: Eduardo Dominguez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 02 May 2001 18:22 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re:

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> Seriously though, win32 is particular hard to do automated testing. > Maybe we could use cygwin for running the test-suite under win32 and at > least be able to use standard *nix tools? It already does run under windows. - James -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubs

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > I think it's enough to announce it on the PHP mailing list > with a short > > > explanation of what RC means. We don't want the whole world > to download > > the RC. > > > >i would like to spread the news as far as possible > > Let's take it one step at a time. We sho

RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: > >I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the > >time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer > >resources to fix bugs. > >I truly think that making RCs effective releases gains nothing. If >

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, 2 May 2001, Eduardo Dominguez wrote: > > >That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom > >has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack > >of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would > >like to to test to actually t

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

>That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom >has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack >of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would >like to to test to actually test. Can anyone make it easy to (via a good tutorial

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

>That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom >has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack >of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would >like to to test to actually test. Can anyone make it easy to (via a good tutorial

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Wez; Is there another test suite other than the run-test.php script? (Which does run on Win32: TEST RESULT SUMMARY = Number of tests: 165 Tests skipped: 66 ( 40%) Tests failed: 22 ( 22%) Tests passed: 77 ( 78%) = Skippe

[PHP-DEV] RE: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> On 2001-05-02 15:03:50, "Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We're going to have a Windows build machine at Zend, that will have > > automated builds (it's actually quite around the corner now). Once > it's > > ready, we're going to have daily snapshots as well as RC builds all the > t

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On 2001-05-02 15:43:57, "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:38 PM 5/2/2001 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: > >Seriously though, win32 is particular hard to do automated testing. > >Maybe we could use cygwin for running the test-suite under win32 and at > >least be able to use standard *nix

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

Zeev Suraski wrote: > "Testing new software releases before putting them into production" is > pretty much a one sentence description of what 'Quality Assurance' is. that's QA for their products usually and not so much for 3rd party components > I don't seem to recall Linux publishing far-reach

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

At 05:48 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >Okay guys, do whatever you want. Most people seem to agree with you. At least you'll be able to give us the "I told you so" speech if it makes things worse :) Andi -- PHP Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

> I would rather describe QA as "Making sure the release does have as least > bugs as possible". IMO this is different then just testing RC's. I think a > QA team should be the team who says "Yes, release it" or "No, there are > still some bugs left we want to fix". Of course, in order to do this,

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

Okay guys, do whatever you want. Most people seem to agree with you. Zeev At 17:42 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: >At 05:34 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: > >>I don't seem to recall Linux publishing far-reaching announcements about >>-pre versions. If you walked around the development

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 03:38 PM 5/2/2001 +0100, Wez Furlong wrote: >On 2001-05-02 14:51:53, "Jani Taskinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great >wisdom > > has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack > > of binary builds for RCs kinda m

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > At 17:29 2/5/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote: > >On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > Their job description might list "test new software releases > > before putting them into production," and not "join the PHP > > QA team." > > "Testin

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

At 05:34 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >I don't seem to recall Linux publishing far-reaching announcements about >-pre versions. If you walked around the development mailing lists or the >behind-the-scene web sites, you could hear about it, much like you can >with PHP today. Linux k

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On 2001-05-02 14:51:53, "Jani Taskinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That COM problem is Win32 specific. And as Microsoft in it's great wisdom > has decided not to include any compilers in their OSs, the lack > of binary builds for RCs kinda makes it a bit hard for those who would > like to to tes

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On 2001-05-02 15:03:50, "Zeev Suraski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We're going to have a Windows build machine at Zend, that will have > automated builds (it's actually quite around the corner now). Once it's > ready, we're going to have daily snapshots as well as RC builds all the time. That'

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

> > Their job description might list "test new software releases > > before putting them into production," and not "join the PHP > > QA team." > > "Testing new software releases before putting them into production" is > pretty much a one sentence description of what 'Quality Assurance'

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

At 17:29 2/5/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote: >On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order > > to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? > > Their job description might list "test new softwar

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: > The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order > to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? Their job description might list "test new software releases before putting them into production,

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 04:20 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > I think it's enough to announce it on the PHP mailing list with a short > > explanation of what RC means. We don't want the whole world to download > the RC. > >i would like to spread the news as far as possible Let's

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Andi Gutmans wrote: > I think it's enough to announce it on the PHP mailing list with a short > explanation of what RC means. We don't want the whole world to download the RC. i would like to spread the news as far as possible -- Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.six.de +49-711

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

At 05:15 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in >order to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? Because they can't really be bothered with being part of the QA team and seeing all the Emails. Bu

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 17:07 2/5/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote: >On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: > >Yes, that would definitely be nice and it used to exist on php4win.de. > >Hopefully when the site returns it'll start happening again. > >Excuse me my stupidity, but why should it be their job to deliver these? >IM

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

The question is, if you think people will actually download the RC in order to test it (as opposed to using it) - why won't they join the QA team? At 17:11 2/5/2001, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > As I said, I don't think it's a big deal, but I think it will only have > > slight negative impact, an

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 04:07 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote: >On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > >>Or are there binaries build for Winblows of each RC ? > >>Another thing would be great, is that the snapshots of CVS were > >>also found as binaries for Windoze. > > > >Yes, that would definitely be nic

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6 (fwd)

> As I said, I don't think it's a big deal, but I think it will only have > slight negative impact, and even slighter positive impact. I believe that > people who are willing to download RC's and test them as such (i.e., send > detailed and informative bug reports, or even positive summaries) wou

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Hehe..I was just gonna suggest that Zend could do this... :) This is really great news. --Jani On Wed, 2 May 2001, Zeev Suraski wrote: >We're going to have a Windows build machine at Zend, that will have >automated builds (it's actually quite around the corner now). Once it's >ready, we're go

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: >>Or are there binaries build for Winblows of each RC ? >>Another thing would be great, is that the snapshots of CVS were >>also found as binaries for Windoze. > >Yes, that would definitely be nice and it used to exist on php4win.de. >Hopefully when the sit

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

We're going to have a Windows build machine at Zend, that will have automated builds (it's actually quite around the corner now). Once it's ready, we're going to have daily snapshots as well as RC builds all the time. Zeev At 16:51 2/5/2001, Jani Taskinen wrote: >On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutm

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 03:51 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Jani Taskinen wrote: >On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > >At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: > >>I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the > >>time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer > >>r

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: >At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >>I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the >>time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer >>resources to fix bugs. >>I truly think that making RCs effec

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 09:39 AM 5/2/2001 -0400, Adam Trachtenberg wrote: >On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > > The COM problem would have been found IMO if we had released a bigger RC. > >I think the COM problem would have been found if somebody ran the test >suite immediately before releasing 4.0.5 final. I

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: > The COM problem would have been found IMO if we had released a bigger RC. I think the COM problem would have been found if somebody ran the test suite immediately before releasing 4.0.5 final. I think modifying the RC process to ensure that the last thin

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 04:22 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the >time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer >resources to fix bugs. >I truly think that making RCs effective releases gains nothing. If >everyone

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

> What I'm trying to say is that if we make that jump from a QA team to the > entire world, then essentially, we go a step backwards. I think that the > way things are today is good, and most of the bugs which aren't found can > only be found in wide scale testing, but I don't think that announci

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

I don't see any unusual peak now; We have tons of bug reports all the time. IMHO our problem is no longer lack of QA, but lack of developer resources to fix bugs. I truly think that making RCs effective releases gains nothing. If everyone else thinks differently, so be it. Zeev At 16:08 2/

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 04:15 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >At 16:02 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: >I disagree. We are not getting enough testing of our RCs. >>I think if we announce an RC and we tell people they are just helping us >>test the pre-release it's OK. >>It's not as if they can't grab a snapshot

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 16:02 2/5/2001, Andi Gutmans wrote: I disagree. We are not getting enough testing of our RCs. >I think if we announce an RC and we tell people they are just helping us >test the pre-release it's OK. >It's not as if they can't grab a snapshot. People usually tend to deal with pre-release or re

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Zeev Suraski wrote: > I don't think that's a good idea, because then people will treat them as > releases. thats just a matter of labeling and announcement message > I think that the way things are currently, plus the natural > growth of the QA team, are the right way to go. IMHO the current

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 02:18 PM 5/2/2001 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > I think we should make a list of known 4.0.5 bugs which need to be fixed > > for 4.0.6 and once we fix them branch 4.0.6. I think there have been enough > > changes to warrant a 4.0.6 release soon. > >and i would sugges

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 04:02 PM 5/2/2001 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote: >At 15:18 2/5/2001, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >>Andi Gutmans wrote: >> > I think we should make a list of known 4.0.5 bugs which need to be fixed >> > for 4.0.6 and once we fix them branch 4.0.6. I think there have been >> enough >> > changes to war

Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

At 15:18 2/5/2001, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: >Andi Gutmans wrote: > > I think we should make a list of known 4.0.5 bugs which need to be fixed > > for 4.0.6 and once we fix them branch 4.0.6. I think there have been enough > > changes to warrant a 4.0.6 release soon. > >and i would suggest to anno

[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-QA] 4.0.6

Andi Gutmans wrote: > I think we should make a list of known 4.0.5 bugs which need to be fixed > for 4.0.6 and once we fix them branch 4.0.6. I think there have been enough > changes to warrant a 4.0.6 release soon. and i would suggest to announce the RCs not only here but on php.net and freshmea