octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]