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

[Richard Lynch]

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 obtuse and difficult?

What might be more realistic would be to "fork" the request to an invisible
(to the end user) testing machine and real machine.

Then, the outputs of the two can be compared, and an error report of some
kind generated for any differences.

Ideally, the production output would be sent on its way without any "delay"
waiting for the testing machine to
respond/fail/explode-in-a-burst-of-flames.

There is some overhead, of course, but I *think* this is a more feasible
design, possibly even "doable"...

--
WARNING [EMAIL PROTECTED] address is not working -- Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wanna help me out?  Like Music?  Buy a CD: http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm
Volunteer a little time: http://chatmusic.com/volunteer.htm
- Original Message -
From: Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Andi Gutmans <[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
> > 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 doing?  I would suspect that
> the
> majority of the QA team follows the same slack process that I follow.
>
> 1.) build the latest release
> 2.) make test
> 3.) look at phpinfo()
> 4.) see what happens to a few scripts
>
> Am I right? :)
>
> We should be testing the RC's against large bodies of working
> code that real users are using. This is tough to do - no one wants to
> break a working site.
>
> How difficult (and useful) would it be for us to have a system like
> the one describe below.
>
> The standard PHP SAPIs and CGI executable are replaced by shell that
> maintains environment data and passes it to an RC.  The RC attempts
> to handle the request.  If it fails, the shell passes the same request
> is passed to a stable version of PHP, and the failure is logged,
> along with the environment data, etc...
>
> The user request may be slowed, but is still served.  The shell
> could include threshold settings so that we stop passing requests
> known to break the RC after a certain number of requests...
>
> By co-operating with various site owners, we could get the RCs into
> environments where they server millions of hits in a day in a broad
> range of situations.
>
> Anyone think that this blueskying is useful or possible?
>
> --zak
>
>
> --
> PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Richard Lynch]

> 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 likely, though, the cost/benefit ratio of mass distribution of the RCs
is borderline -- And throwing a few more resources at the QA team (eg Win
binaries) will be far more effective.

There will *always* be some bugs that only get found by mass testing.  The
COM bug should have been caught by a QA team member, and you've identified
why not.

:-) :-) :-) Suggested Compromise Ultimatum:  Windows binaries and Zend test
machine before 4.0.6RC1, or post RC announcement to the masses.  This should
goad us (okay, you) into having the process in place or suffering the
consequences :-) :-) :-)

--
WARNING [EMAIL PROTECTED] address is not working -- Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wanna help me out?  Like Music?  Buy a CD: http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm
Volunteer a little time: http://chatmusic.com/volunteer.htm



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Liz]

>
> >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 in a location where I can change it that easily)

I am seeing that some COM stuff is now hanging with 4.0.5, however, a lot of
the stuff I use day to day is different on Personal IIS5 than the the full
version.

So, I'll try and look at the difference in code and see if I can help pin down
any apparent problems, it seems tobe the $word->Visible=1; line, if you skip
that, it cant do a couple of other things and then allows you to Quit..

Liz


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Daniel Beulshausen]

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 
>>>between the last PRC and the final release code got changed.
>>
>>the com support is/was broken for 6 weeks...
>
>And the breaker has fled and isn't fixing it :)

that isn't the problem, the problem is that it'll take some time to step 
behind the code :)

daniel

/*--
daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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 last PRC and the final release code got changed.
>>
>>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?

It is but 6 weeks have passed :)

Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Daniel Beulshausen]

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 last PRC and the final release code got changed.
>>
>>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?

he merged it a week ago, but it existed in the main branch for 6 weeks.

daniel

/*--
daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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.
>
>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?

Zeev


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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 changed.
>
>the com support is/was broken for 6 weeks...

And the breaker has fled and isn't fixing it :)

Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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 (and with much more passion :), 
>I agree with every word he said.
>Andi - php-general@ today is so full of newbies that it's not a very good 
>place to start with either.  There may be smaller teams, PHP user groups 
>or something along these lines, that will be willing to take part in the 
>QA process.  I don't think that a random group of a few thousand users is 
>a good idea to start with.

Yeah but we can try it once. If we see that it's a disaster we'll stop and 
what we might have earned from it is having some of the more knowledgable 
guys from php-general@ hear about php-qa@ and joining.
As I said, you might be right but I think it's worth a try.

Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Daniel Beulshausen]

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...

daniel

>James put what I thought in clearer words (and with much more passion :), 
>I agree with every word he said.
>Andi - php-general@ today is so full of newbies that it's not a very good 
>place to start with either.  There may be smaller teams, PHP user groups 
>or something along these lines, that will be willing to take part in the 
>QA process.  I don't think that a random group of a few thousand users is 
>a good idea to start with.
>
>Zeev
>
>At 21:36 2/5/2001, 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 when 
>> the real
>> > 4.0.6 is released. This means we will start to get bug reports saying this
>> > isnt working in 4.0.6 when it has been fixed in the RC phase but is still
>> > present in the first RC.
>>
>>IMHO is's still better to have a RC that people do not update from
>>then a pl1 that people do not update to
>>(and we still have lots of error reports from people using versions
>>  way before 4.0.4, too)
>>
>>but if someone uses a RC and did not upgrade to the final release
>>we can blame him
>>if someone uses a release and didn't get the message that a pl1 is
>>out it isn't that easy
>>when using a RC you should be aware that a release (or a new RC)
>>will be coming soon and that you should watch for it, especially
>>if you have a problem with the RC
>>when using a release there is nothing but experience with previous
>>php 4 releases that gives you a clue that you should watch for a
>>pl1 within days
>>
>>sure, some people don't get the clue whatever you do
>>but with labeling something as release candidate, announcing it as
>>such, and maybe adding bells and wistles to configure, make and
>>the installers for precompiled windows versions (maybe even to every
>>error message php generates) it should be possible to get the
>>attention of everyone not totally clueless
>>
>>
>>maybe we can agree on the following compromise? :
>>
>>- RC1 up to RCn announcements go to php-dev and QA only
>>
>>- as soon as things seem to work for QA we create
>>   RCn+1 or maybe PRC1 (public release candidate)
>>   and announce it to php-general
>>   this continues up to RCm or PRCm
>>
>>- when things have stabalzied even more we create
>>   [P]RCm+1 and announce it whereever we can
>>
>>- and finaly we do a release
>>
>>this would be just one additional step after all:
>>take what we label as a release now and re-label it
>>as (hopefully) final release candidate
>>so that we hopefully get a release version which
>>would otherwise be labeled as pl1
>>
>>--
>>Hartmut Holzgraefe  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.six.de  +49-711-99091-77
>>
>>--
>>PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List 
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>--
>Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/
>
>
>--
>PHP Development Mailing List 
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


/*--
daniel beulshausen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
using php on windows? http://www.php4win.de


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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 word he said.
Andi - php-general@ today is so full of newbies that it's not a very good 
place to start with either.  There may be smaller teams, PHP user groups or 
something along these lines, that will be willing to take part in the QA 
process.  I don't think that a random group of a few thousand users is a 
good idea to start with.

Zeev

At 21:36 2/5/2001, 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 when the 
> real
> > 4.0.6 is released. This means we will start to get bug reports saying this
> > isnt working in 4.0.6 when it has been fixed in the RC phase but is still
> > present in the first RC.
>
>IMHO is's still better to have a RC that people do not update from
>then a pl1 that people do not update to
>(and we still have lots of error reports from people using versions
>  way before 4.0.4, too)
>
>but if someone uses a RC and did not upgrade to the final release
>we can blame him
>if someone uses a release and didn't get the message that a pl1 is
>out it isn't that easy
>when using a RC you should be aware that a release (or a new RC)
>will be coming soon and that you should watch for it, especially
>if you have a problem with the RC
>when using a release there is nothing but experience with previous
>php 4 releases that gives you a clue that you should watch for a
>pl1 within days
>
>sure, some people don't get the clue whatever you do
>but with labeling something as release candidate, announcing it as
>such, and maybe adding bells and wistles to configure, make and
>the installers for precompiled windows versions (maybe even to every
>error message php generates) it should be possible to get the
>attention of everyone not totally clueless
>
>
>maybe we can agree on the following compromise? :
>
>- RC1 up to RCn announcements go to php-dev and QA only
>
>- as soon as things seem to work for QA we create
>   RCn+1 or maybe PRC1 (public release candidate)
>   and announce it to php-general
>   this continues up to RCm or PRCm
>
>- when things have stabalzied even more we create
>   [P]RCm+1 and announce it whereever we can
>
>- and finaly we do a release
>
>this would be just one additional step after all:
>take what we label as a release now and re-label it
>as (hopefully) final release candidate
>so that we hopefully get a release version which
>would otherwise be labeled as pl1
>
>--
>Hartmut Holzgraefe  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.six.de  +49-711-99091-77
>
>--
>PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List 
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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.
>
> How much testing is the QA team actually doing?  I would suspect that
>the
> majority of the QA team follows the same slack process that I follow.
>
> 1.) build the latest release
> 2.) make test
> 3.) look at phpinfo()
> 4.) see what happens to a few scripts
>
> Am I right? :)
>
> We should be testing the RC's against large bodies of working
> code that real users are using. This is tough to do - no one wants to
> break a working site.
>
> How difficult (and useful) would it be for us to have a system like
> the one describe below.
>
> The standard PHP SAPIs and CGI executable are replaced by shell that
> maintains environment data and passes it to an RC.  The RC attempts
> to handle the request.  If it fails, the shell passes the same request
> is passed to a stable version of PHP, and the failure is logged,
> along with the environment data, etc...
>
> The user request may be slowed, but is still served.  The shell
> could include threshold settings so that we stop passing requests
> known to break the RC after a certain number of requests...
>
> By co-operating with various site owners, we could get the RCs into
> environments where they server millions of hits in a day in a broad
> range of situations.
>
> Anyone think that this blueskying is useful or possible?

I don't think it's too realistic :)
I prefer having the php-general guys test it on their development machine's.

Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[James Moore]

> 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 unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Liz]

> 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 news; the cygwin test suite suggestion is probably still valid
> though.

Another thing would be to branch into Borland C++, as thats also a strong
windows based compiler, it opens compilation to a lot more people.

I have to say, being able to download a prebuilt windows version would be
good, heres a number of reasons why..

#1 What if the problem was with the MS VC++ on the machine that built it,
rather than the actual code?
#2 It does mean that for people like me who have access to Vis Studio but are
not so familiar with it for whatever reason we can just download and test
#3 Most people have access to a windows machine, thus opening for more of the
people prepared to do proper QA to have a check on the windows stuff

Liz


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Hartmut Holzgraefe]

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 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.

o come on, all those 2.x.yPREz and .ACn announcements on freshmeat.net
are not far-reaching? that's ridiculous!


-- 
Hartmut Holzgraefe  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.six.de  +49-711-99091-77

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sascha Schumann]

> 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
> need to test RC's.

Yes, the QA team might consider feedback from outsiders who
have configurations which are not in wide deployment or not
available to the QA team.  Additionally, real-life scripts
tend to stress PHP in ways no imaginable test framework can,
so we get another dimension of pre-release testing.

- Sascha Experience IRCG
  http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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 mailing lists or the 
>>behind-the-scene web sites, you could hear about it, much like you can 
>>with PHP today.
>
>Linux kernel pre-releases are usually publicized and easily downloadable.
>
>Andi

--
Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[derick]

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 releases before putting them into production" is
> pretty much a one sentence description of what 'Quality Assurance' is.

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
need to test RC's.

Derick Rethans

-
PHP: Scripting the Web - www.php.net - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 SRM: Site Resource Manager - www.vl-srm.net
-


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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 kernel pre-releases are usually publicized and easily downloadable.

Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Wez Furlong]

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 news; the cygwin test suite suggestion is probably still valid
though.

--Wez.


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sascha Schumann]

> > 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 main point here is that I think lowering the barrier is
good and is more likely to produce good end results.

> 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.

10 announcements for the 2.2.19pre branch:

http://freshmeat.net/branches/12527/

The same amount of 2.4-testing

http://freshmeat.net/branches/12570/

- Sascha Experience IRCG
  http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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 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.

>   Joining the QA team for downloading a simple
> pre-release sounds a bit too much bureaucratic.
>
> And just to give an example.  In the past, I've installed
> various pre-releases of the Linux kernel.  If something
> broke, I reported it.  But I don't think I would have ever
> joined a Linux QA team.  Enabling more people to test RCs on
> a wider range of systems will hopefully produce more feedback
> and hence increase the quality of the release process.

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.

Zeev


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sascha Schumann]

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," and not "join the PHP
QA team."  Joining the QA team for downloading a simple
pre-release sounds a bit too much bureaucratic.

And just to give an example.  In the past, I've installed
various pre-releases of the Linux kernel.  If something
broke, I reported it.  But I don't think I would have ever
joined a Linux QA team.  Enabling more people to test RCs on
a wider range of systems will hopefully produce more feedback
and hence increase the quality of the release process.

- Sascha Experience IRCG
  http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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. But they do want to run the RC on their test server 
to make sure they are ready to upgrade and that they can upgrade (And of 
course they want to help out).

Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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 should be providing them. Or is setting up some Windows machine
>to build them so hard? (I don't know shit about compiling on Windows :)

Well, that's just the way things usually work;  If you can donate 
something, you do it...

Zeev


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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 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) would
> > join the QA team.  The ones will reach by announcing it on
> > php-general/php.net/freshmeat are essentially people that will regard them
> > as releases, and are likely to put them on production servers.
>
> Well, yeah.  Lots of people in companies actually have
> test-servers with installations of their software where
> things can break without affecting any users.  I'm not sure
> that we reach those users with our current QA process.  But
> we might be able to do that by planting announcements on
> freshmeat.net-like sites.
>
> - Sascha Experience IRCG
>   http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg
>
>
>
>--
>PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List 
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Andi Gutmans]

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 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 should be providing them. Or is setting up some Windows machine
>to build them so hard? (I don't know shit about compiling on Windows :)

Well we'll get one up and running at Zend.


> >I don't think "leaking" some RC information to the PHP mailing list is a
> >bad thing :)
>
>The RC should also be announced on www.php.net as news item.
>With both Win32 binary and sources to be dowloaded there.

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.

Andi
Andi


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sascha Schumann]

> 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) would
> join the QA team.  The ones will reach by announcing it on
> php-general/php.net/freshmeat are essentially people that will regard them
> as releases, and are likely to put them on production servers.

Well, yeah.  Lots of people in companies actually have
test-servers with installations of their software where
things can break without affecting any users.  I'm not sure
that we reach those users with our current QA process.  But
we might be able to do that by planting announcements on
freshmeat.net-like sites.

- Sascha Experience IRCG
  http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Jani Taskinen]

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 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 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 effective releases gains nothing.  If
>> >>everyone else thinks differently, so be it.
>> >
>> >The COM problem would have been found IMO if we had released a bigger RC.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>(Forgive me, I don't do Windows..=)
>>
>>--Jani
>>
>>
>>--
>>PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List 
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>--
>Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/
>
>
>


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Jani Taskinen]

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 returns it'll start happening again.

Excuse me my stupidity, but why should it be their job to deliver these?
IMO we should be providing them. Or is setting up some Windows machine
to build them so hard? (I don't know shit about compiling on Windows :)

>I don't think "leaking" some RC information to the PHP mailing list is a
>bad thing :)

The RC should also be announced on www.php.net as news item.
With both Win32 binary and sources to be dowloaded there.

--Jani



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Zeev Suraski]

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 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 effective releases gains nothing.  If
> >>everyone else thinks differently, so be it.
> >
> >The COM problem would have been found IMO if we had released a bigger RC.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>(Forgive me, I don't do Windows..=)
>
>--Jani
>
>
>--
>PHP Quality Assurance Mailing List 
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CTO &  co-founder, Zend Technologies Ltd. http://www.zend.com/


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[Sascha Schumann]

> 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 RCs
> in prominent places is the way to go.
> Perhaps we should announce the QA team again, so that people who would join
> but don't know about it would get a chance.

I don't see how announcing RCs which are explicitly marked as
such in a larger forum can hurt PHP or the release process.
Could you elaborate?

- Sascha Experience IRCG
  http://schumann.cx/http://schumann.cx/ircg


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]