On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jason Stephenson <jstephen...@mvlc.org>wrote:
> Quoting Mike Rylander <mrylan...@gmail.com>: > > And speaking as another of the developers, I'd love to see evidence of >> problems (really -- we can't address issues without it). New features and >> > > The point of the performance analysis is to gather that information. > > Indeed it is. I don't think I said anything disagrees with your statement. I apologize if that line came across as flip; it was a sincere request for details. I don't see a need to wait for a formal analysis before starting to gather detailed evidence. Stepping back a little from that ... as you noted, the premise of the initial point is not valid. It's not wrong, per se, just not founded on an understanding of the technical details. Not understanding the details should not stop anyone from speaking up (but, I should note, speaking authoritatively about things which one does not understand is something else entirely). We all have things to learn and teach, and your response was meant to do exactly that, I think. My follow-up was not meany solely for Stephen (it's an open list), but was meant to follow on with your point in order to ask for detail, now, if anyone has any. As soon as I have everything wrapped up with my aforementioned working branch, I'll do just that. The bigger point implied in the initial email, and what I wanted to address more broadly, is that QA is seen as "someone else's problem" and it's that someone else's (presumably the RM's) responsibility to test, identify and repair defects. I disagree with that. I think we can all play a part -- even if we don't know we are doing so -- and should. There's plenty in both scale and breadth to do. -- Mike Rylander | Director of Research and Development | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: mi...@esilibrary.com | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
