Re: [Firebird-test] Catching up on postings

[Jason C. (JAC2) <ja...@ja...>]

""Leyne, Sean"" <sl...@at...> wrote in message
news:D3AC71AF0C0BD411877E0000E20DEAD0180428@MDA_NT...
> All,
>
> First, please allow me to apologize for not reading the postings sent
> over the last couple of days prior to sending my "plan for discussion"
> posting.  I wasn't used to much activity in this list and didn't even
> think to check.
>
> While I am impressed with the discussions that have taken place, I think
> we need to establish the goals which need to be address by the testing
> processes.
>
> I see the goals as:
>
> 1) Users running the testing programs should be insulated from the
> actual implementation/coding of the programs.  They should be able to
> download a ZIP/TAR with contains an executable, run it, review the
> results and perhaps create new scripts.
>
Fully Agree.  They should possibly have release notes / change log just for
interest after the tests.

> 2) The execution of the testing program should involve a minimal
> installation footprint; the db client is expected, installing a C++
> compiler should not be.
I don't mind if we have to install a C++ compiler as long as there are idiot
proof instructions.

> 3) All of the testing programs (including any script editors)
> should portable, to run on any platform which the engine runs on.
This may hamper development, I could work on some bits in Delphi for Win32,
but that would under the "must be under all OS'" be a no-no.

> 4) Any choice of development tools (Delphi, C++, Python, Java or MS
> C# <big grin>) should carefully consider the overall expertise of the
> project members.
3 damages 4. Suddenly we've lost Delphi + MS anything.

JAC.