3.6 Full release testing (was Re: [BUG]? Upgrade to full image
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Aug 21 11:30:10 UTC 2003
Hi Martin,
> If you want to split up testing and developing, then yes there are at
> least 2 reasons for supporting Full in the same way the monolithic
> image got supported. From what I saw on the mail list, there
> is really the effect of what I called 'statistical testing' -
> sometimes even inadvertently testing by playing around.
I agree on this but (after reading the discussion) I had the impression that
the statistical testing is not generally recognized as being terribly
important (I am having some doubts myself about its effectiveness in
general). So what I wanted to do here is to provide a couple of arguments
where I _think_ people can understand the value of using "full" images and
update streams more easily.
> There were quite some bugs
> and problems found this way. To have some 'statistical' testers it
> should be made as easy as possible to have an actual alpha/beta/gamma
> Full image.
I fully agree.
> In short words, any fragmentation of the 'scope' of procedures will
> make things more difficult than with the old monolithic image.
> Generally we should aim to mimic procedures regarding Full as if it
> were the monolithic image. Just a modularized one.
Yes.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|