[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: BCA
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] Proposal: FluidSynth tester program
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:07:57 +0200

to underline Sven's answer - I'm constructing pretty extremely complex soundfonts setups for jOrgan using fluidsynth as the sound engine (Linux and Windows), so I'm absolutely willing to test upcoming release candidates for new features and bugs to be resolved.
Bernd Casper BCA 

----- Folgende Nachricht wurde empfangen -----

Absender: Sven Meier
Zeit: 2012-07-16, 20:10:07
Betreff: Re: [fluid-dev] Proposal: FluidSynth tester program

jOrgan has many users who are driving fluidsynth to its limits. If
there's a problem they will bring it out.

Although I don't have much time for doing tests by myself, I'll gladly
make test versions available to our users.

(the jorgan guy)

On 07/16/2012 05:36 PM, S. Christian Collins wrote:
> Not to start volunteering people, but perhaps the jorgan guy (is his
> name Sven Meier?) would be willing to test some things as well. I know
> there are a few times his project has been hit by changes or bugs that
> have become an issue for him. If he would be willing to test certain
> things that pertain to his project, then he could also help stamp out
> bugs before they would affect jorgan.
> -~Chris
> On 07/16/2012 07:47 AM, David Henningsson wrote:
>> 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
>>>> thread
>>>> reminded me of that thought...
>>>> FluidSynth is quite a versatile program/library, and we all
>>>> want
>>>> 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
>>>> of
>>>> 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.
>> Agreed.
>>> 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
>>>> program
>>>> 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
>>>> yourself?
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> fluid-dev mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev

fluid-dev mailing list

reply via email to

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