On 5/12/14, 11:00 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/12/14, 10:41 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Josh Elser<[email protected]> wrote:
>SGTM. Looks like there aren't currently any fixes of much substance for
1.6.1 presently, but there are a few that would make for a very-low
impact
1.6.1, and a good 1.5.2 which also includes the fallout tickets shortly
after 1.5.1. Timeframe looks good to me too.
If we can get that reduced test burden for "real" bug-fix releases
hammered out, a month sounds good to me.
Rather than reduce the test burden, it would be nice to make the cluster
testing more automated like you and other have discussed.
I think that would be a good parallel goal, but I would still think that 7
days of testing for a bug-fix release is excessive. Most times for me the
pain is getting resources to test for such a long period, not necessarily
setting up the test.
I see. Wether or not the testing is excessive depends on the bug fixes.
We could relax the goal and let decisions be made per release. A possible
way to do this would be to not require anything beyond mvn verify AND
people can -1 a release if they do not think sufficient testing was done.
This makes it easy to make the testing decisions per release using the
existing release voting mechanism.
Absolutely, I wouldn't want to say that every bug-fix release need not
be tested extensively for that exact reason. I like the idea you propose
-- it would make us think more about what goes *into the release* as
opposed to blindly assuming that the tests run actually exercise the
code in the appropriate ways.
We could focus more assuring that we have proper coverage for the issues
that caused us to make this release in the first place.
Granted, perhaps this is a bit tangential at this point... :)
