- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:04:06 +0900
- To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Hi Bjoern, all. On Jun 8, 2006, at 14:24, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > HEAD has more bugs, less features, more dependencies, interesting only > to people who would like `check` to have less code (and I think I was > the only one who removed code from check, others would like it to have > /more/ code, like additional SOAP templates) and to people who need the > performance gains, which is us at most. Thanks for your thoughts, Bjoern, but I think you're being modest, here. * Less features, yes, I discussed that in my previous mail. * More dependencies is not a big issue, is it? That can be documented, and except for opensp (and spo for the moment), all the dependencies are covered by cpan. * Less (or more) code is not a goal per se. Code moves around, some is removed from check, but then s:p:o is quite a few lines of code. What I would think matters is that the code is maintainable, and I think what we have in HEAD is moving into that direction. * More bugs, really? I haven't counted the HEAD-specific bugs, but I recall many instances of "this is fixed in HEAD", enough to make me doubt that statement. * and finally, the performance gains... Maybe it interests us at most, but we're still our main customers, and we still have a damning load problem on our two servers, so the performance gains, if they actually are as good as your tests showed, are a crucial change. All considered, I wouldn't say it's an obvious winner, but it certainly deserves a bit more enthusiasm. Notably, if we consider the few scenarios for the future of the tool... either it finally evolves into something bigger, that can finally do XML decently, validate using schema, rng, etc - or it gets stripped down to a minima (s:p:o ?) and included in such a bigger tool, or it just stays at its current stage and gets replaced little by little with other, newer tools. Out of these 3 scenarios, I see 2 which would benefit from the s:p:o based architecture, and none really harmed by it. > Considering how previous alpha tests drove attention to the code, I > am not sure what the point would be. It doesn't seem to help convince > anyone to fix the known bugs. That's a fair point, I agree that the alpha/beta tests have not always been particularly fruitful in bug fixes. They bring in some bug reports, but obviously not as many as just releasing into production. I'm not sure what your stance is, though. Do you think it's useless to do an alpha test and we should release, instead, when we think it's time; or do you think the alpha test, and the release, etc, would be useless? Thanks, -- olivier
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 01:04:19 UTC