On 20 Mar 2007, at 15:17, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Dave wrote:
All I know is that if I were to write something like this (a file/
image data exporter) then once I'd got it working past the the
point where I could write an image file in all the different
formats then I'd run a soak test on it and let it run for *loads*
of (like 10,000 +) of iterations and I would have checked that
memory was being released. In fact I wrote an external command
module that does something similar (it analyzes movie frames) and
I *did* soak test it and I *did* find memory leaks.
For me, this is software engineering 101.
And it turns out that you did write an image exporter, and did run
it through a soak test. Good job.
Better to do it before anyone else find the problem and the best time
to do that it right after you have finished coding it. That way it
still fresh in your mind.
I'm glad you recognize that it's up to us to test the specific
implementations we use Rev for. The combinatorial explosion of all
possible uses would make it impossible for RunRev to do that.
Where does it say this in their product advertising? I must have
missed that bit.
RunRev can help by having Beta cycles whose length is more in
keeping with industry norms, but the actual testing can't be done
by them; there are just too many possibilities.
I'd be happy to test it for them. How much are they paying?
What was the final recipe for this error (I was unable to reproduce
the last one), and what's the BZ #?
Jacque is looking into it at the moment and will report it. I will
let you know the BZ # when I get it.
All the Best
Dave
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
