>
> >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
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
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
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
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
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
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..
> 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
> 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,
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
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'
11 matches
Mail list logo
