-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Sunday, November 26, 2006 20:04:02 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
> I am a bit worried about this, because we're predicating the decision
> to release 8.2 now on the lack of bug reports; if that's due to lack of
> testing rather than lack of bugs, we might have a disaster in the
> making. But there's no way to know that now, and really I see no value
> in being fearful at this point. If we delayed a month, we'd be in
> pretty much just the same situation a month from now.
Just my $0.02, but in a way, I think you nail'd it on the head earlier in this
thread (or a recent one) ...
The buildfarm tends to provide us with ongoing testing ... anything that the
buildfarm *can't* test for most likely won't get tested / found until we hit a
real world situation, and real world situations don't generally happen until
after the release ...
So, one question that I have is ... is there some way of extending the build
farm testing that would reduce "post-release" bugs? Do we have any known holes
in our regression tests that would have found any bugs reported by "humans"?
You have to remember, in the past, alot of testing revolved around ppl
installing and running the regression tests on their platform ... buildfarm is
automatically doing that now, which is why we haven't done a 'call for port
reports' ...
And I'm not saying that 'human testing' isn't required anymore, only that we've
reduced the reliance on it through the buildfarm, since any bugs that do creep
in (that are a result of the regression tests) tend to be found before most ppl
would be able to report them ...
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFan464QvfyHIvDvMRAmtgAKCKOKgibz06owFTiaRFG21i0tnfXgCfcagv
Lst5n6/iwcqzHGZ/06NezfM=
=eB9Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
