Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote in message news:46646B35.5050709@gmail.com...
Thomas Witt wrote:
Hi,
Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Jun 4, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Beman Dawes wrote: I was going to write this email, but Doug beat me to it. And I guess you both beat me to it... As I was busy spending all my free time trying to fix bugs for 1.34.1. Although what's below are not my only thoughts on the release procedure...
The proposal seems to assume infinite resources in testing.
Which particular part?
On-demand testing, testing of breaking-stable branch, continuous testing of stable branch, all with high-availability and high-. Currently we can only manage partial testing of *1* branch, in one build variation. And now we are talking of testing at least three branches at once.
Can we get strait to the point?
What is required to make stable release? (Complete list) Why 1.34.0 is not stable?
Complete, interesting thought :-) I can't say I have such a complete list. But perhaps this will give you and idea: * Bugs attributed 1.34.0 <http://tinyurl.com/2cn7g6>, and only a small number of them are targeted for 1.34.1. * The inspection reports 193 non-license problems, and *1059* license problems. * We don't test the build and install process. * We don't test libraries against an installed release. * We don't test release versions, even though this is the most used variant by users. * We don't test, to any effective means, 64 bit architectures. * We don't test, to any effective means, multi-cpu architectures.
I believe spliting the directory structure will our life way simple in many prospectives. What complications do you see?
It increases the number of combinations that need testing. And in complicates the build and testing infrastructure. Both of which increase the likelihood of instability. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo