|
|||||||||||
|
Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise source
From: Joerg Bruehe <joerg(at)mysql.com>
Date: Thu Sep 20 2007 - 05:04:09 EDT
Jeremy Cole wrote:
>> Yes, this has been brought up, and everything you've mentioned before >> has also been brought up. Our canned answer for this is that the >> internal server QA processes have improved tremendously, and there are >> many many test cases and an impressive test suite, hence MySQL has >> decided to try a "reverse Enterprise" model > > Oh come on. *Just today* another incident has caught my attention which > shows a lack of QA for basic things: 5.0.48 was pulled because of a > stupid bug which should have been caught in basic QA. We all (at MySQL AB) agree with your assessment: This should not have passed internal tests undetected, and the incident showed the test suite lacks coverage. > You may be ready That is a debatable issue, depending on which kind of QA you mean. IMO, it would be a shame if MySQL AB would try to use the community for such basic QA - things like that InnoDB "order by ... desc" problem must be covered (and caught) by our internal processes. So IMO, MySQL AB must not rely on the community for such basic things. What MySQL AB can not do internally is to imitate the wide variety of usage and access patterns, database designs, applications, connectors, heterogeneous environments, etc which are developed and used by the many community members. MySQL AB relies on the community for extended QA (for lack of a better term), and we are grateful to everybody doing this and providing us feedback (positive or negative).
Regards,
-- Joerg Bruehe, Senior Production Engineer MySQL AB, www.mysql.com -- MySQL Packagers Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/packagers To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/packagers?unsub=lists@pantek.comReceived on Thu Sep 20 04:06:11 2007 This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 07 2007 - 10:15:40 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||