Nick Milas wrote:
On 31/1/2012 10:16 μμ, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
if you were subscribed to the openldap-devel list, you would see that I have been making repeated calls for testing on the RE24 branch in preparation for a 2.4.29 release.
I wanted to add that, in order to get more visibility to these calls, you could also post them to this list, because I am sure that some people (judging from myself) who could/would test are not developers but sysadmins and would not be subscribed to the developer list.
Sounds fair.
Additionally, testing would surely be much more widespread if some RC builds were available at least for the most common distros (RPM, deb). If some of the project developers build RC package versions for their own testing, why not post their builds and make them available to people in this list?
Two answers: 1) The OpenLDAP Project does source releases. Period, end of story.
2) sometimes it is the build procedure that needs to be widely tested; e.g. if we update versions of autoconf/libtool/etc. (as we plan to do in the near future).
OK, we can try and build, yet I believe that response to test calls would be much greater if some RC package builds were available.
Calls for testing are only useful if competent people perform the tests. We don't want the general public downloading candidates. We want people who are experts on their build systems, who can do some degree of problem isolation/ triage on their own, and who know how to file useful bug reports.
I guess that could be made possible if some distro/project package maintainers could agree to provide packages (with standard options) for RC versions e.g. in specialized repos.
Something like Ubuntu ppa's, sure. That's for those other project maintainers to get into.
That would allow testers to focus on testing the final product and not spend considerable time in building (probably sometimes with inadequate results).
That misses the point.
Finally, if there are some suggested testing scenarios that are proposed for testing (e.g. running particular scripts), that would help testers too. Otherwise, we would be testing haphazardly.
Just 2c - I'm only trying to help.
That's appreciated, believe me.