User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Not a release cycle length problem

Not a release cycle length problem

Posted May 3, 2007 19:14 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
In reply to: Not a release cycle length problem by giraffedata
Parent article: A tale of two release cycles

> The reason the Linux kernel can't use this well-worn strategy for
> eliminating bugs is that the special economics of open source and
> community development don't provide a way to get people to do all that
> boring alpha testing

It seems Adrian complains the alpha testing part is done. What's not done is exploiting all the testing reports.


(Log in to post comments)

Not a release cycle length problem

Posted May 3, 2007 22:05 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

The reason the Linux kernel can't use this well-worn strategy for eliminating bugs is that the special economics of open source and community development don't provide a way to get people to do all that boring alpha testing
It seems Adrian complains the alpha testing part is done. What's not done is exploiting all the testing reports.

Chopping the quote where you do, it looks like you're disagreeing. The end of that sentence is "and debugging." I assume it's the debugging part that nobody is signing up for.

I also strongly suspect that in the cases that concern Adrian, the testing done was beta testing, which engineers don't find nearly so objectionable. Beta testing is where you fire up the new code and try to use it for real work. Alpha testing is where you simulate using the code, for no gain other than flushing out bugs in it. That's what's boring enough that engineers seem to have to be paid to do it.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds