This was testing done right. The feature was offered as opt in and clearly
marked as beta. A bug was found and quickly fixed. When you're testing beta
software, you have to expect bugs.

We've been quick enough to knock rollouts done poorly or made default with
inadequate testing, and should be. Let's not knock the ones done right.
On Sep 19, 2014 5:24 AM, "Guillaume Paumier" <gpaum...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:15 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarb...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > Why should he give himself credit for your insufficient testing?
>
> "Insufficient" is in the eyes of the beholder :) Beta Features are
> experimental, and Ori's announcement clearly indicated that this
> particular feature was "for intrepid beta testers".
>
> This means that the feature is still being tested, and that people who
> enable it should expect to find bugs, and should report them so they
> can be fixed before the feature is deployed more widely.
>
> This is precisely what happened in this case, so the testing process
> worked as expected. Developers can't find All The Bugs alone, which is
> why they need the help of volunteer testers.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to