Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > The proposal is based on the fact that every message delivered to the
zone
> > will be disposable spam. Therefore, unlike performing some sort of faux
> > release without any basis, we will be testing in a risk-free
environment.
> > Every message can be dropped, the database can be corrupted, the server
can
> > leak memory and crash, and no one should care other than to fix it.
> Then you are talking about a closed environment test, so do I.
We're possibly differing on some English language semantics in terminology.
As long as we agree with the mechanics of the proposal, as above, I don't
care if you call it Nancy. :-)
> > As an example of why this sort of testing is the right thing to do,
rather
> > than the idiocy of pushing out releases without real-world testing,
consider
> > our current situation with SVN.
> I never said we should release without testing beforehand.
> It is you who is ignoring the fact we have a safe black box
> testing tool right here in our project.
No, you appear to be ignoring that blackbox testing using Postage in
isolated networks is nowhere near sufficient to provide any basis for
assurance of real-world functionality. I am addressing that lack.
> At the bottom line, I am happy that there seems to emerge some kind of
> common goal to start from TRUNK and put it into heavy testing, be it on
> a Solaris zone or locally using Postage.
See above regarding Postage. And keep in mind that I've used Postal and
Rabid for isolated testing in the past, but it (too) is not sufficient. We
need the real world exposure.
> +1, count me in.
:-) There we go.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
