Thread: Testing list
WWW,
I'd like to resurrect the "testers" list or a list by a similar name
("pgsql-tests", for example, or "pgsql-qa"). The reason why I want this
list is that I've been approached by several of our sponsoring companies
about expanding test coverage and types of testing for PostgreSQL, and I
want to see if we can make it work to harness the efforts of our
corporate sponsor QA and QE folks.
A mailing list seems like a good way to start this and see if it'll fly.The reason I don't want to use -hackers is that
someof the people
involved can't deal with the high email volume on -hackers, and -hackers
isn't a good place for the kind of speculative discussion we'll start
out with. I can't think of another existing list which would be
appropriate.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> WWW,
>
> I'd like to resurrect the "testers" list or a list by a similar name
> ("pgsql-tests", for example, or "pgsql-qa"). The reason why I want this
> list is that I've been approached by several of our sponsoring companies
> about expanding test coverage and types of testing for PostgreSQL, and I
> want to see if we can make it work to harness the efforts of our
> corporate sponsor QA and QE folks.
>
> A mailing list seems like a good way to start this and see if it'll fly.
> The reason I don't want to use -hackers is that some of the people
> involved can't deal with the high email volume on -hackers, and -hackers
> isn't a good place for the kind of speculative discussion we'll start
> out with. I can't think of another existing list which would be
> appropriate.
I don't believe this should be discussed on -www. The stake-holders
are all on -hackers, so the discussion should IMO be held there.
And based on the discussions last time, I think you'll have to outline
what's actually going to be *different* from before.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> I don't believe this should be discussed on -www. The stake-holders > are all on -hackers, so the discussion should IMO be held there. The people I want for this list are *not* on -hackers (see my post), and AFAIK nobody on -hackers other than Dunstan are working on testing. > And based on the discussions last time, I think you'll have to outline > what's actually going to be *different* from before. Did you even read the email I posted? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> I don't believe this should be discussed on -www. The stake-holders >> are all on -hackers, so the discussion should IMO be held there. > > The people I want for this list are *not* on -hackers (see my post), and > AFAIK nobody on -hackers other than Dunstan are working on testing. No, but they are also not on -www. And the people they will be discussing with, and the people who will have to buy in on whatever that list thinks up, are on -hackers. Therefor, any decision made without their buy-in, is likely to fail. >> And based on the discussions last time, I think you'll have to outline >> what's actually going to be *different* from before. > > Did you even read the email I posted? I did. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
> No, but they are also not on -www. And the people they will be > discussing with, and the people who will have to buy in on whatever > that list thinks up, are on -hackers. See, this is why I wanted a place for speculative lists, like we basically had on pgfoundry. I don't know that this list will end up doing *anything* (people could be all talk and no action), but without a list I can't find that out. The way we have it now, any list request has to be judged against the criteria for semi-permanent existence, which is a barrier to people trying stuff out which may not work. Hmmm. I suppose pgfoundry still exists, and I still have the ability to create lists there ... -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 10/10/2012 01:03 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >> No, but they are also not on -www. And the people they will be >> discussing with, and the people who will have to buy in on whatever >> that list thinks up, are on -hackers. > > See, this is why I wanted a place for speculative lists, like we > basically had on pgfoundry. I don't know that this list will end up > doing *anything* (people could be all talk and no action), but without a > list I can't find that out. > > The way we have it now, any list request has to be judged against the > criteria for semi-permanent existence, which is a barrier to people > trying stuff out which may not work. > > Hmmm. I suppose pgfoundry still exists, and I still have the ability to > create lists there ... > I have to say JB has a really good point here. We are setting an unrealistic threshold for the creation of what is our primary form of communication in the project. In short, we are saying that no list shall exist without an existing demand and that list must be something of a permanent nature. That is just silly. Lists are easy to create and easy to destroy. Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC @cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579