On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 01:11:58PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: > On 6/4/02 12:59 PM, "Steve Simmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed: > > > Actually, for 6PAN I think they should have to pass. And maybe we > > need a bug submission setup, and status checks, and . . . OK, OK, I'll > > stop now. They're nice ideas, but who bells the cat? The again, if > > Tim O'Reilly wants to fund me I'd be happy to do it. :-) > > On what platform(s)? Who's going to pay for the test bed for every possible > combination of perl version, OS, various libraries, etc., etc.? I think that > *requiring* that all tests pass is unrealistic.
Perhaps so, but I'd prefer to see this as a goal and fall short rather than set our sights lower and achieve an empty success. As for funding - well, one source has been mentioned above. Another might be the H/W vendors. Suppose we modify the proposal to have a list of systems on which the module has been known to pass (or fail) self-test? Get H/W and O/S donations from Sun, HP, etc, volunteer labor to assemble a test framework, and then let people upload. On the web page for a given 6PAN module put a pass/fail indicator for all the stuff that vendors have donated. Vendor X wants to be on the list? Let 'em donate hardware, S/W, and (maybe eventually) something towards overhead. Hmmm, we may have a good idea here...
