W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Re: [wmvs] Open Issues for 0.7.0

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:08:21 +0200
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r02010300-1035-0725E527FE9511D8878C0030657B83E8@[]>

Hash: SHA1

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>Identifying all these issues (as in, what needs to be done to put HEAD
>into a state that could replace 0.6.7) is what I've understood your
>action item to be so we can see how to resolve these issues, publish a
>beta version to identify and fix remaining issues and then release a
>stable 0.7.0.

Then you should have made sure the action item was phrased as «Terje to find
all bugs, fix them, and release 0.7.0 ASAP.» :-)

I fix issues as I find them, and as time allows, but there simply isn't any
way that I can identify every conceivable bug lurking in there and send a
report to the list.

I'm trying to do better at reporting bugs in Bugzilla if I don't have time to
fix them immediately — so that they are at least documented — but what I don't
know about I can't very well document.

>Are these known bugs documented somewhere?

See above. Some are, but others aren't as yet. I'll make sure to file them as
I find the time to narrow them down to something usefull.

>>Is there anything I can do to help you get started?
>Not really, I rather focus on working on code outside of `check` in
>terms of separate Perl modules so that the code has an associated test
>suite and does not need to me modularized later.

Pardon me if this is a really stupid question, but if you don't understand how
the current code works how do you propose to write modules to implement the
same functionality?

Seriously, the code is sufficiently well internally factored that if you feel
comfortable writing generic modules from a blackbox perspective, then you
understand it well enough that you should be able to identify and fix many if
not all issues in the current code.

Fair enough if you think your time is better spent on writing the modules
— and I think we're all very much looking forward to the day we can call m12n
«finished» — but I sure could use a hand in getting 0.7.0 ready.

Even if you insist you can't contribute code because all the listed bugs are
«out of scope», you can still help by contributing to reducing that list
through detailing why each specific bug should get bumped to a later release.

e.g. that bug with the validator not removing fragment identifiers from URLs
is in general fixed through turning all URLs into URI::URL objects. The reason
it got bumped from 0.6.x was that the change would hit too much code to be
sure we'd catch all the fallout. Initially I think we have a sufficiently
large window of opportunity in 0.7 for us to implement it now, but perhaps
there is some issue that pops up when you look at it more closely. Identifying
that issue up front — so we can bump it to 0.8 — would be a major help!

Any bug marked as a blocker for the 0.7.0 release can get dealt with one of
two ways; it can be «CLOSED FIXED», or it can get retargetted for a later
release. Either is equally valid, and the only reason I'm not turning you
loose on that list is because you've made it clear your views on what is «in
scope» for 0.7.0 is at one extreme of the scale (i.e. you'd most likely defer
_everything_). I'm aiming for somewhere in the middle, but I'm explicitly
asking for you (all of you) to help me tune where on the scale we should land.

There isn't a «0.7.1» target in Bugzilla as yet because I believe /that/ is a
version where the scope should be limited not only to bug fixes, but to minor
bugfixes, with little or no chance of side-effects, or really critical
problems (probably introduced between 0.6.7 and 0.7.0).

But for 0.7.0 I think there needs to be a balance, and I'd very much
appreciate any help you can provide in terms of figuring out where that
balance point should be!

- -- 
"Violence accomplishes nothing."   What a contemptible lie!    Raw, naked
 violence  has  settled  more  issues  throughout  history than any other
 method ever employed.  Perhaps the city fathers of Carthage could debate
 the issue, with Hitler and Alexander as judges?

Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3

Received on Saturday, 4 September 2004 17:08:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:46 UTC