From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: when emacs 22.1 release will ready? Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:18:41 +0200 Message-ID: <4635C281.9020509@gmail.com> References: <259495020704291337s35dd584fi3b7ef1dd511b11d4@mail.gmail.com> <4635B7F9.8090909@gmail.com> <87ps5mmbie.fsf@mid.thomas-huehn.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1177928335 9410 80.91.229.12 (30 Apr 2007 10:18:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_H=FChn?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 30 12:18:54 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HiSy6-00084t-1g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:18:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiT4G-0003OS-8D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:25:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HiT49-0003OD-Gk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:25:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HiT48-0003O1-0g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:25:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HiT47-0003Ny-Qh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:25:07 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HiSxw-0002FQ-9v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:18:44 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-145-24.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.145.24]:64927 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HiSxu-0006ye-4H; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:18:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: <87ps5mmbie.fsf@mid.thomas-huehn.de> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000737-0, 2007-04-30), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1HiSxu-0006ye-4H. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1HiSxu-0006ye-4H 233e7492db5e98aa6573d7158e23f8c6 X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:70403 Archived-At: Thomas Hühn wrote: > "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" writes: > >> What do they do to keep control over the quality? I guess they are >> using a lot of unit testing for the kernel, or? > > I suppose there are *a lot* more people trying out pre-release kernels > than CVS Emacs or pretest versions. > > Another point why this pretest thing over the last weeks might have been > bad: > > People don't take "this is our pretest tarball, please check it for > severe errors, this is our chance to find showstoppers before the > release" serious if there are a lot more of "this time it's for real" > pretest tarballs after that with no release in sight. That means that > pretest tarballs reach even less potential testers. > > That's more psychology than anything else, but it might count > nevertheless. I agree to both your points here. It looks however to me that it is a mix of slightly bad circumstances that are adding together. It might be tempting to look for a single cause, but it is perhaps more fruitful to consider what the addition of a lot of small things may cause. There is a lack of resources here and that is a crucial thing that interacts badly with other weak points. Every developer and tester is valuable then. Normal testing is known to demand a lot of resources. Bad implementation of normal testing is by some writers said to demand much more resources than trying to go along without any testing framework. Unit testing promoters says that unit tests instead quickly is freeing resources. If that is true for a project like Emacs is of course not self evident, but I think it can be.