Hi, > You are doing it again :-)
IMO It was a fairly accurate representation of the state of affairs. You do realise when I write "PMC" I'm including myself? For instance look at the amount of feedback from the the "test" RC of TourDeFlex (RC0) and then the issues found in RC1 and RC2. Other releases have has similar issues, ie that important issues or regressions are only found a few RCs in. Our CI doesn't catch all issues. The RC0 step was added to try and get people to try stuff out before the first proper RC and cut down on the number of RC cycles - and IMO it's had some positive effect but not a huge amount. > What are the alternatives to CI and Mustella tests? There no real good alternative to CI as manual testing take up a lot of time. With the installer and several other projects don't have tests that the CI can run *, so someone would need to step forward and write tests for those project. (Perhaps that not seen as important enough?) This has happened with TLF (which was donated with no tests) which is great. On that subject (and while it is manual testing) TourDeFlex is a good way of testing a new SDK, particularly in a few areas where we have limited or no tests eg OSMF or newer Apache SDK features. Having a set of FlexUnit tests rather than Mustella tests would probably get more people involved in helping out with tests, and would make testing easier, but that would be a (very) large undertaking. Having a set of tests that could be run more easily and that didn't take 8 hours would also help, a few people has suggested some solutions (ie run tests in parallel) but also hard to implement. Thanks, Justin * Ant for AIR used in the installer does have tests but the installer itself doesn't
