| 1 |
On Sun, 2005-13-03 at 02:51 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 2 |
> Olivier Crête wrote: |
| 3 |
> >On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 01:01 +0100, Ernst Herzberg wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>>dev-util/esvn: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >>0.6.8-r1 was masked, and has some crazy bugs, that this stuff is not usable |
| 7 |
> >>for an 'enduser'. If you select an 'working directory', the last character of |
| 8 |
> >>the path get lost. You have to create a workspace, select there a working |
| 9 |
> >>directory, add the last character by hand.... |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >>OkOk, as long as this stuff is masked, no problem. BUT: Upstream has released |
| 12 |
> >>a new version with this bug fixed. Why went the buggy version stable? And the |
| 13 |
> >>new with the bug fixed version is masked? That make no sense to me. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >>Can somebody explain that? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> >Maybe you should ask MrNess... But he doesn't seem to think that testing |
| 18 |
> >is important... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> This package I happen to use at work, I could say I did more than a |
| 21 |
> simple test. |
| 22 |
> Do you suggest that, if this bug is real, I should know about? |
| 23 |
> Do you understand that tests don't always detect bugs, right? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ohh I was just commenting on another QA related thread... and I was |
| 26 |
extrapolating that this might be related to a certain QA policy that |
| 27 |
certain developers seem to follow... But it is sure that testing doesn't |
| 28 |
find the interesting bugs (that's why we need users!)... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Olivier Crête |
| 32 |
tester@g.o |
| 33 |
x86 Security Liaison |
Archives