- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:05:15 +0200
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
* olivier Thereaux wrote: >* 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. There are some bug fixes in the area of character encodings; from the number of bug reports relative to those it seems users are rarely affected by this. The bugs and shortcomings concern more common cases. >* 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. They depend on mod_perl, so far we didn't manage to put at least qa-dev check instances under mod_perl if I understand correctly. Changing that would be a good idea. >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? I think we have rather limited resources and there is considerable work to do before we can release HEAD. I'd rather see resources spent on working on known bugs and other deliverables like the test suite than on an alpha test that would generate reports for known bugs that are not likely to be fixed in the forseeable future. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 9 June 2006 05:05:23 UTC