lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] release 2.9.4
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:12:46 GMT
Actually about to dive into a big search tweaking spike in a certain
project here, happy to do it on 2.9.4. Got binaries?

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
> We don't have any sort of QA report on the latest build. DIGY called
> for testing, but I haven't seen anyone respond to that request
> indicating successful testing.
>
> So, how do we want to manage this?
>
> In the business world, we'd never think of making a release without
> extensive QA first. In my other open source projects, either we've
> managed QA ourselves by 'switching hats' for a couple weeks prior to
> release, or just crossed our fingers because the user base was too
> small.
>
> Lucene.Net is a fairly high-profile project, with a large user base. I
> think it would not be responsible to make a release without a formal
> QA process. We do have extensive unit tests, but do you think those
> are sufficient to cover our QA needs? Should we try to find community
> members with a specialty in software testing that would be willing to
> fulfill this role on our project? Should we just swap hats?
>
> I didn't worry about this issue with the latest 2.9.2 release because
> it was QAed by the user base for a long time before it was an
> 'official release'. Maybe this is an effective tactic? Release first,
> and let the user base roll in bug reports fixing them on yet later
> minor maintenance releases? This seems to be the method a lot of
> projects use (i.e. no specific QA process, but rather an organic
> process of 'try our best then deal with bug reports later').
>
> What do we think about this?
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I know we have a number of outstanding JIRA issues, but I think most of them have
been handled for the 2.9.4 release? Do we have anything outstanding that is holding back a
new release?
>>
>> ~P
>

Mime
View raw message