Hi everyone, At this point, I would like to suggest we table this debate until Bertrand gets a chance to look at the latest version of the new release process proposal. If he’s ok with the proposal, then we put it up for a vote.
Thanks, -Alex On 12/7/14, 12:34 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 7, 2014 12:24 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> > 'Fairly' accurate is not good enough. >> >> I not done the stats on every release but you would have to agree it's >happened many times. The fact we don't have only 1 or 2 RC for each >release confirms it. I'd estimate that 80%+ of the releases have had more >than 2 RCs I think "fairly accurate" covers that. > >I meant your statement about the PMC, not the stats. > >> >> > The point is, by painting with such broad strokes, you are discounting >the >> > efforts of those who take time to contribute to the project. >> >> I'm not discounting anyones effort there and I really not know why you >would assume or state that. > >That is what your language suggests. Which is what many of us have been >trying to tell you. > >> >> We do have some issue here. For instance: >> - How many people have added new mustella tests? >> - How many new mustella tests have been added since incubation? >> - How many PMC members run the tests themselves on the RC? >> - How many committers run the mustella test before checking anything in? >> - How many committers/PMC members even know how to run the tests? >> - We have regular failures of the mustella test runs - often for no >explained reasons >> - We need to rerun failed tests several times just to get all the tests >to pass - that's hardly ideal >> - We've run into mustella tests that are wrong and just working by >accident > >None of what you mentioned are problems with Mustella itself. > >> >> Yes the CI solves some of the later points and I totally agree having >tests (of any sort) is better than not having them but it's fair to >describe it as an imperfect solution. > >That is not what you said. You blamed the release process on Mustella. > >> >> > But there is no point in blaming the CI system or the Mustella tests >>for >> > our difficult release process. >> >> It has caused issues in the past ie Michael + Nick collection changes. > >Because the changes broke existing tests. What would be different if >those >were FlexUnit or JUnit tests? > >Thanks, >Om > >> >> Thanks, >> Justin
