Folks,
Apologies. I didn't mean to suggest that we didn't *want* to, or wouldn't *like* to test dotLRN, I was merely highlighting the fact that we simple don;t have the resources or volunteers required. I was also hihglighting the fact that dotLRN is far more specific as a platform, and therefore any test effort we do apply, will be more valuable if applied to the core.
As for organising I'd have no objection to including dotLRN in my remit, but..... how can I justify that when we as a community are not yet able to fully address our own core offering?
Now.... if I was overwhelemed with volunteers who would do testing (and do a fairly complete job ;), then this would not be the case.
Also, although I don't wish to give off the 'its their product' impression I do have to offer some gentle chastisment.
dotLRN is a proper, commercial and well backed effort with a paying customer. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect that OF, as the contracted firm, would perform and produce a reasonably comprehensive test plan/effort.
That is not to suggest that they are *obliged* to, but what concerns me is that they are going to be feeding a great deal of code into the OpenACS (hurray for that), but without any visible or transferable test effort. If this is the case then they are essentially increasing our QA burden....
If one was extremely synical one could argue that this is almost leaving the crappy jobs to the community! I don;t think thats what open source is about. Peer review provides many benefits, but it should not be substituted for a proper test effort.
Lets assume we were able able to perform a level of testing commensurate with the level of development... this would mean that the dotLRN stuff would add months and months of effort to a new release!
Basically the point is simple...
People are not taking testing a quality seriously enough!
Everyone vocalises its importance, but sadly there isn't the same actual test effort to back it up.
Lets get this sorted.... its good for everyone :)
