flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Flex 4.0.0 release questions (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Flex 4.8.0)
Date Sun, 01 Jul 2012 04:39:33 GMT

On 6/30/12 9:36 AM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

>> Why do you think it is a beta?
> Mostly because we have not found any major issues yet.  I am not sure if
> its because we did a lot of testing and came up with very few bugs or if we
> havent done enough testing.  I know builds have been constantly updated
> with some of us emailing out problems they faced.  But what level of
> clarity do we have on how much testing was done?   Maybe if we had people
> piping up with - "I tested it, it looks fine" emails, I wouldnt be so
> worried.
I have to admit it feels this release process feels funny to me.  I'm used
to having a team of QA folks pound on it and a group of managers decide on

However, I ran it through almost 14,000 Mustella tests we used to ship 4.6
and only two test results were suspicious.  The rest passed to my
satisfaction.  There were some minor color differences on a few tests, most
likely because of the switch from SWF assets to FXG, but it could also be a
rendering difference on m computer.  So, it is good enough to me.

But for sure, I would like to see this vote thread met with dozens of +1
votes because folks tested their 4.6 apps on it and it appeared to work.  I
believe that is the "Apache way" of assuring high quality releases.

> Also, I am worried about pushing out a public release and then people pound
> on it and we start finding bigger issues.  We probably need to have a plan
> for when something like that happens, right?
The goal for Apache projects in general is to release frequently (as in
several times a year).  It allows contributors to see their work more
quickly and maintain enthusiasm for contributing.

If a major problem is found we will fix it as quickly as possible and cut a
new release.  Fortunately, the overhead for doing so (other than IPMC
approval) is much lower than it was at Adobe.

But as I said above, it is very important that many folks take some time to
test this build and vote.
> The best way to test a parity release is to take a project that was
> compiled with Adobe Flex 4.6 and test it with Apache Flex 4.8 to see if
> something breaks.  I dont know if we have any such designated projects in
> our trunk we constantly test each build with.  This means that most of the
> testing on the 4.8 release will happen on end users' projects.
We don't have any projects in Apache Flex SVN.  We also don't have a good
technology for testing such applications.  I think we will rely on Mustella
tests for now and FlexUnit test going forward, but I'm not sure how much
we'll rely on application-level testing.
> Calling it a beta is a more cautious approach, IMHO.  Especially given the
> fact that this Apache Flex's first release.
I don't want to call it a beta.  Let's convince ourselves we have a process
to determine that a build is good enough for production and make it an
official release.  To me, that Mustella run is good enough (and for future
releases, everyone should be able to run Mustella because we'll have it
checked in as I will be submitting the files for legal audit on July 9).

Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.

View raw message