[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [fluid-dev] Proposal: FluidSynth tester program

From: David Henningsson
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] Proposal: FluidSynth tester program
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:47:23 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1

On 07/12/2012 07:43 PM, jimmy wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:57, David Henningsson <address@hidden> wrote:

Something I've been thinking of for a while, and the recent
reminded me of that thought...

FluidSynth is quite a versatile program/library, and we all
different things out of it. No one of us has the full
picture, or uses
FluidSynth to all the different things it can be used for.
Making sure that none of all these use cases break, is one
FluidSynth's biggest challenges, and maybe sometimes it can
cause us to
be overly cautious.

Same thing can be said for most softwares out there.  I agree about being 
cautious, too.  I definitely don't want malware backdoors in any softwares, or 
buggy softwares either.

Although, being an open source community, it's the code contribution that make 
the software grow.


Imagine Linus writing all the changes alone, by himself, for the Linux kernel in it's 
current form?  That would be insane.  I doubt that Linus even fully understand much of 
what's in the hundreds of device drivers in the kernel, nor the hardware to test those 
himself.  Can't even test all those changes even if he has all the hardwares working in 
his lab(s), let alone having an "RC" (release candidate) available every 
weekend for people to test.

I guess the difference here is dedicated time for development; there are hundreds or even thousands of people getting paid for working on the Linux every day, here we are only volunteers.

Linus has its subsystem maintainers which he trusts, but getting that trust would take years of good patch writing (I think).

Here's a proposal that might help us with that challenge.

  . . .

What do you think? It obviously won't be much of a tester
without a bunch of testers, so is this anything you think
would make so
much sense, that you would be willing to run a test or two

A 2-3 week testing period of some "release candidate" would help before a new 
release anyway.

People's hardware and software configurations can and will change as machine 
break down, and replaced, as well as new releases of libraries, compilers...  
It would be good to have a skeletal test-report to fill out, and posted, so 
folks would have an idea of hardware/software, which distribution, 32/64-bit 
OS...  Not sure if we need the library and compiler version number, but it 
shouldn't hurt if those are reported back.

I guess this should be a bit adaptable depending on the test - for testing that it builds under a certain OS, compiler version might be more important than, say, testing envelope rendering or something like that.

Some people might be on vacation, busy, out-sick...  But as folks in the FS-dev mailing 
list subscribers, let's way every "release candidate" announcement should 
encourage everyone here to do a test and report back.  Can't force anyone, but just say 
we hope folks here will help track down any potential bugs anyway.

Of course, any bug(s) found, confirmed, and fixed should result in a new "release 
candidate" to be tested again, reset the testing time period.

After a few rounds, we would have an idea of how many test-reports and what environments 
each "release candidate" got tested, along with how many problems found...

Not quite as formal as some automated test-suite, but would help along the way.

Yeah, I'm thinking somewhat along the same lines. Hopefully we won't have to make too many release candidates...

// David

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]