This is just as I understand things. Tapestry is test-driven, maybe all we lack is some communication around tests' code coverage... Any feature in Tapestry is fully tested and then the status of a release is the seen stability of the API and feature set. The closer of the release's intended feature set, the closer of the release.
As I say quite frequently, we were on production since Tapestry 4.0-alpha-3 and never had major bugs that we couldn't work around. Just cosmetic improvements. I see no better quality procedure than test-driven development with 100% code coverage. Anyway, having the release vote just a few days avec the rc-1 is quite... strange. Le lundi 12 décembre 2005 à 09:50 -0500, Cliff Zhao a écrit : > I like to know whether the Tapestry project has a quality policy about the > stages of releases. > > I understand that this is an open source project. It is different on many > aspects with commercial products. Having said that, IMO, quality is a key > component to every project/product. The quality can not be achieved by one > or two smart people. It also needs a system/process. In every project I > worked on, there is a criteria for entering a new stage, no matter what it > was called; it may be beta/RC, or ST, AT. And the criteria is clear, and > include statistics such as the number of new bugs, the number of bugs > outstanding, etc. it aslo includes the status of documentation (user guide, > installation guide, system test plans, etc). Design walkthroughs/code > walkthroughs, you name it. A good idea/design from a smart people also > benefit from the walkthroughs (based on my past experience). Some time, > people brought in scenerios the author had never thought of. > > I don't know whether Tapestry has any quality procedures. While, I followed > up the mail-list quite awhile. My feeling is that Tapestry has no quality > procedures. > > I like to hear opinions from the Tapestry inner circle. > > Best Regards, > > > > On 12/12/05, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Erik Hatcher wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 11, 2005, at 2:00 PM, Jeff Lubetkin wrote: > > > > > > Jeff - this is a classic, and often annoying, response.... > > > > > > How about rather than holding an internal validation class, you > > > write up the details as patches to Tapestry's documentation and submit > > > them? Then next time your developers need documentation, you can say > > > RTM that you helped write. :) > > > > > > Erik > > Hi again Erik :P. Rather you have a classic, and often annoying response > > to the response. I don't know about Jeff, but usually, when I write a -1 > > to something like this is a "team" based approach. Is that, as a team > > member of Tapestry, I would find the framework as lacking without proper > > documentation. > > > > Howard called for a vote, that's a vote. Patches come later of course. > > > > -- > > Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi > > DTQ Software > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
