On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Vince, I would say that we, the developers of PostgreSQL, are then not
> qualified to test our own releases for the reasons you mentioned that Katie
> should not test her own releases. Of course that's ridiculous -- often the
> developers can do a better job of testing because they know better than the
> regular user would about what conditions can cause crashes.
Don't twist what I said. My statement about Katie was that she has a
knowledge of the port and the OS to the point where there are things
that she knows are wrong to do and would avoid doing it. In the case
of this port the idea is to make sure that those things that may cause
the backend to close are something that SHOULD be tested. By their own
admission they haven't been doing that. All they've done is loaded it
down and made sure it continued to work. The other ports have a long
history, the windows port has ZERO history. If you're being sickened
now, how sick would you be if something went wrong and you started seeing
things all over /. and other sites going on about how PG crashed and
blew away some corporation's data and half the OS away on something
that at worse should have only caused the backend to close? It won't
matter that it was running on windows, it would have been a native
port that was blessed by the PGDG.
If anything, the resistance to this testing should sicken you.
Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/
Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-01-30 18:34:32|
|Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |
|Previous:||From: Joerg Hessdoerfer||Date: 2003-01-30 18:11:04|
|Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System|