[Kde-pim] Permission to forward port "folder white listing" from Enterprise branch to 3.5

[Till Adam]

On Monday 24 March 2008 22:22:09 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 16 March 2008, Till Adam wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 23:34:06 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Thomas McGuire wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > I assume it is tested in the enterprise branch, so it probably is
> > > > reasonable bug-free to port it to the 3.5 branch. In general, I'm
> > > > OK with it. Ingo, any opinion on this?
> > >
> > > Considering the recent corruption of binary attachments which
> > > wasn't discovered in the enterprise branch for 21 days and was then
> > > merged to the 3.5 branch makes me very sceptical. As such I don't
> > > want any feature to be merged to the 3.5 branch which has not been
> > > thoroughly reviewed and tested. If it has been reviewed and tested,
> > > then I'm okay with the merge. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time
> > > to review it myself.
> >
> > Ingo, there's always a tradeoff between merging new functionality
> > into all branches quickly, which helps find regressions faster (as it
> > did in this case) and helps us keep the delta between branches as
> > small as possible, and letting changes mature in one branch first,
> > before back or forward porting, at the risk of many users missing out
> > on things, merging becoming harder, patches getting dropped, etc. At
> > the current point in time, where no 3.5 nor trunk release is
> > emminent, our approach is to merge quickly, since that seems to be
> > the lesser evil. I think 3.5 branch has benefited from that approach
> > overall, for the past two releases.
>
> It surely did. No doubt about it. But...
>
> > In the case of the attachment corruption the patch was picked up by
> > the OpenSuse build service, the resulting packages were tested by
> > adventurous users, the problem was found and fixed. In this case this
> > process happened faster than the regression testing cycle in
> > enterprise branch, where the bug was discovered a few days later.
>
> But this bug was so obvious that it should have been discovered much
> earlier by the most basic function test. If I had changed something
> with respect to attachments I had at least tried to create a test
> message to check whether it works. I know that this costs time and thus
> money since you are paid for working on KDE PIM (which I think is
> awesome). Anyway, maybe it was briefly tested and the bug went
> unnoticed. Let's move on.

For the record, attachments were tested, of course, but mostly textual ones, 
since the bug that was fixed by the commit in question was about text encoding 
of text attachments. Since those worked fine, the tester assumed (reasonably) 
that binary attachments would also still work. We're working on getting 
automated UI testing integrated into the regression test suites, in the hope 
to be able to catch this kind of stuff. It's impossible to manually regression 
test something as complex as Kontact with any kind of coverage. Luckily the 
community helps with that, which exposed the bug, this time. Good. ;)

> > (Note: the "we" in the above is the KDEPIM/Kolab team at KDAB, namely
> > myself, Volker, Pradeepto, Kevin, Andreas, Thomas, Marc, Frank,
> > Laurent and Jaroslaw, with varying degrees of involvement)
>
> I take this opportunity to thank all of you for all the wonderful work
> you are doing for KDE PIM. Thanks, guys!

Thanks, Ingo, that's appreciated.

Till


-- 
Till Adam
KDAB - platform independent software services
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/attachments/20080328/6f4e1ca1/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/