From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <ron(at)intervideo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |
Date: | 2003-02-03 21:20:09 |
Message-ID: | 3E3EDD09.1AF31926@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Claiming that it doesn't require an increased level of testing is
> > somewhere between ridiculous and irresponsible.
>
> We should have at least _some_ platforms (besides Win32) that we could
> clain to have run thorough test on.
>
> I suspect that RedHat does some (perhaps even severe) testing for
> RHAS/RHDB, but I don't know of any other thorough testing.
>
> Or should reliability testing actually be something left for commercial
> entities ?
The testing has to be done before we make anything available as an
official release. As of now, the status of this project is at the
beginning of incorporating a 7.2.1 based patch into CVS HEAD.
Asking for exzessive tests at this stage of development and (ab)using
the absence of 100% proof of rock solid reliability as an excuse to
reject the entire aproach would be ridiculous.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-02-03 21:39:06 | Re: new procedural language - PL/R |
Previous Message | cbbrowne | 2003-02-03 20:56:12 | Re: new procedural language - PL/R |