"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote in message news:46647897.5030204@gmail.com...
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.
My solution doesn't require ANY of that. Let me repeat NONE. Well, high-availability/quick responce would be nice. But it's optional. It can be done at later stage. Every library is tested against particular set of dependencies selected by developer. But only *one* per lib. It does require additional disk space for source tree copy. I don't believe it major requirement these days.
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.
I see only 6 bugs assigned to 1.34.1. To be frank with you I don;t see why do we need to hurry with releasing them.
* The inspection reports 193 non-license problems, and *1059* license problems.
This is not a showstopper IMO. 1.34.0 in the same state isn't it?
* We don't test the build and install process.
What do you want to test? In any case it doesn't make release "unstable"
* We don't test libraries against an installed release.
What do you mean?
* We don't test release versions, even though this is the most used variant by users.
We shouldn't be doing this at all IMO. NO testing during release.
* We don't test, to any effective means, 64 bit architectures.
* We don't test, to any effective means, multi-cpu architectures.
Would be nice ... in future releases. It doesn't make current unstable.
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.
No. They don't. We are going to be testing *single* combination per library. Let's me clarify again: do you believe 1.34.0 can't be used as stable starting point? If not, why? Gennadiy