> On Sep 6, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote:
>
> I completely agree with you, Sankalp. I didn't want to dig too deep into
> the underlying testing methodology (and I still think we shouldn't just
> yet) but if the goal is to have confidence in the release, our QA process
> needs to be c
I would suggest that JIRA’s tagged as 4.0 blockers be created for the list once
it is fleshed out. Test plans and results could be posted to said JIRAs, to be
closed once a given test passes. Any bugs found can also then be related back
to such a ticket for tracking them as well.
-Jeremiah
>
> And I would suggest to go further and crash the build with JDK1.7 so we
can take away the possibility for users to shoot their foot off this way.
I like this suggestion. Either we should be on the side of NO support to
JDK 1.7, or if we say we support JDK1.7, I believe we should be building
agai
I completely agree with you, Sankalp. I didn't want to dig too deep into
the underlying testing methodology (and I still think we shouldn't just
yet) but if the goal is to have confidence in the release, our QA process
needs to be comprehensive.
I believe that having focused teams for each compon
Thanks for starting this Jon.
Instead of saying "I tested streaming", we should define what all was
tested like was all data transferred, what happened when stream failed,
etc.
Based on talking to a few users, looks like most testing is done by doing
an operation or running a load and seeing if it
I was thinking along the same lines. For this to be successful I think
either weekly or bi-weekly summary reports back to the mailing list by the
team lead for each subsection on what's been tested and how it's been
tested will help keep things moving along.
In my opinion the lead for each team s
Thanks Jeff.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:01 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> Read heavy workload with wider partitions (like 1-2gb) and disable the key
> cache will be worst case for GC
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Jirsa
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Carl Mueller
> >
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm assuming that p99
Thanks for staring this thread Jon!
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:51 AM Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> For 4.0, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to put together a list of the
> things that need testing and see if people are willing to help test / break
> those things. My goal here is to get as much co
+1
I personally would like to contribute.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:51 PM Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> For 4.0, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to put together a list of the
> things that need testing and see if people are willing to help test / break
> those things. My goal here is to get as m
For 4.0, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to put together a list of the
things that need testing and see if people are willing to help test / break
those things. My goal here is to get as much coverage as possible, and let
folks focus on really hammering on specific things rather than just fir
10 matches
Mail list logo
