[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: release 3.2.1
From: |
Thomas Weber |
Subject: |
Re: release 3.2.1 |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:19:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 09:49:44AM +0200, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> I haven't commented on the suggestions related to how to fix this, as it
> seems like what is being asked for is more man-power. Basically, we need
> a set of beta testers that are willing to use release candidates for a
> couple of months before that final release is made.
No one will be doing this. Let's get some numbers: how many of you run
Octave proper? How many have Octave-Forge packages that need a
re-compile for a new Octave release? How much time do you want to spend
on testing a release?
I know for myself, that I consider "make check" to be the one and only
test. It's easy, integrated and gives immediate feedback. It can be run
on architectures I don't have direct access to and is reproducible.
> Anyway, my point is just that to improve release quality, we need more
> testers. We actually have a bunch of such testers, but they all tend to
> run the latest development version rather than the latest release
> candidate. The only solution I see (as long as we don't have more
> man-power), is to only have one branch of development.
I dare say that we need a different handling of bug-fixes. I really mean
the fixes here. Let's take the current issue as example:
=======================================================================
--- a/src/pt-eval.cc Wed Jun 24 07:40:21 2009 +0200
+++ b/src/pt-eval.cc Fri Jul 03 18:59:07 2009 +0200
@@ -986,6 +986,8 @@
unwind_protect::discard ();
else
unwind_protect::run ();
+
+ unwind_protect::run ();
}
void
=======================================================================
That's the fix for the current issue. Will this fix prevent a similar
problem from getting by unnoticed? No, there's no test for it in "make
check".
So, I'd say we don't need more testers, but more tests.
Thomas
- Re: release 3.2.1, (continued)
Re: release 3.2.1, Daniel J Sebald, 2009/07/06
Re: release 3.2.1, Søren Hauberg, 2009/07/10
Re: release 3.2.1,
Thomas Weber <=
Re: release 3.2.1, Søren Hauberg, 2009/07/10
Re: release 3.2.1, Thomas Weber, 2009/07/11
Re: release 3.2.1, Søren Hauberg, 2009/07/11
Re: release 3.2.1, Robert T. Short, 2009/07/10
Re: release 3.2.1, Søren Hauberg, 2009/07/11
Release process (was release 3.2.1), Robert T. Short, 2009/07/11
Re: Release process (was release 3.2.1), Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2009/07/13
Re: release 3.2.1, Daniel J Sebald, 2009/07/10
Re: release 3.2.1, Sergei Steshenko, 2009/07/04
Re: release 3.2.1, Riccardo Corradini, 2009/07/07