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. :-)
Most
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
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 announcing
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
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 site
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 nice and it used
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, and
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?
IMO we
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,
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 software
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' is.
The
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's good
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
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.
Testing new software
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
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, they
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-reaching
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.
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 http://www.php.net/
To
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
COM module.
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 http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
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
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...
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
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 got
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 changed.
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
between the
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
between the
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 not
29 matches
Mail list logo
