|
|
| Applications |
| Mailing Lists |
| Miscellaneous |
| Operating Systems |
| Programming |
Re: Distro packaging decisions and the non-public Enterprise source
From: Jeremy Cole <jeremy(at)provenscaling.com>
Date: Thu Sep 20 2007 - 04:34:08 EDT
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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,
> Jörg
>
Date: Thu Sep 20 2007 - 04:34:08 EDT
Hi Jörg,
I certainly will not disagree that an issue this basic should have been caught in internal QA, but at the same time, can you argue that having a community release out would have caught this issue before you gave the untested code to your supposedly "more stable" enterprise customers?
The basic issue is that you're asking customers to pay for the privilege of using untested code in production. I for one could never recommend that to a customer...
Regards,
Jeremy
Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> Hi Jeremy, all !
>
>
> Jeremy Cole wrote:
>> Hi Colin, >> >>> 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 >> to call the community unnecessary for QA, but I am not.
>
> 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,
> Jörg
>
-- high performance mysql consulting www.provenscaling.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 04:35:44 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 07 2007 - 10:15:40 EDT
|
Contact Us Legal Notices Order Services Online Pantek Home Privacy Policy IT news Site Map Pantek Library |