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

How exactly would you define success/failure of the RC?... I mean, if it crashes, you can probably catch that, but what if the output is just incorrect? You're back to the problem of only a pre-determined (and very limited) validation suite can really use this, I think... Or am I just being obt

[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

[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] 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..

[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,

[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] 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] 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

[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] 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] 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] 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

[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