• Your Trusted Usenet Provider
  • Secure, Private, Unlimited

Newsgroups Main » Newsgroups Directory » Computers - Non-OS » Source code

Testers ( comp.sources.testers )
 
From [email protected] Sat May 23 13:05:45 1992
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:2372 news.groups:51586 comp.sources.d:7834
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,comp.sources.d
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: [email protected] (Kent Landfield)
Subject: RFD:  comp.sources.testers
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: news.groups
Summary: Lets improve the underlying beta test support on the net
Keywords:  beta, testing, portability
Sender: [email protected] (David C Lawrence)
Organization: Sterling Software
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 16:58:01 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 54

Name:    comp.sources.testers
Status:  unmoderated

This is a call for discussion for an unmoderated group to match software
packages with people willing to test the packages. In several ways
comp.sources.testers will be the opposite of comp.sources.wanted: in the
latter, people who want a program try to find people who have that
software, and in the former, it's the other way around. No source will
ever be posted to comp.sources.testers. Most of the subject lines should
look like

   Subject: Need beta testers for ppmtovcr, another portable bitmap converter

or perhaps final announcements like

   Subject: Done with gamma testing for ppmtovcr, posted to c.s.misc

along with acknowledgments. comp.sources.testers can work as a first
stage before posting to any of the source groups, including alt.sources,
comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc, comp.sources.games, the various
machine-specific source groups, and even comp.sources.reviewed.
Crossposts into comp.sources.testers are fine when there's an
appropriate subject group. Topics like

   Subject: What metrics do you use for evaluating object-oriented programs?

belong in comp.software-eng, not comp.sources.testers.

Just in case, a few definitions:

   alpha testing: Software in alpha test is more an expression of an
   idea than a usable product. The interface will change, the internals
   will change, the documentation may be skimpy. Alpha testers complain.
   Often a program survives alpha testing only because its programmer
   can browbeat a few close friends into trying it out.

   beta testing: Software in beta test includes most or all of the
   features which the author thinks it needs. In other words, the
   interface is usable. On the other hand, the package hasn't been
   tested thoroughly and probably has quite a few bugs. Beta testers try
   to use the software as they would use the finished product, and
   report on what goes wrong and what major features they think have
   been left out. This is usually the longest stage of testing.

   gamma testing: Software in gamma test works. Sure, there might be a
   few bugs here and there, but hopefuly nothing more than an annoyance.
   Gamma testers point out portability enhancements, small or large bugs
   but never critical problems, extra useful features they'd like to
   see. This stage is often left out, especially in commercial packages
   where getting something out the door is more important than adding
   the extra touches which are going to appear in the next version
   anyway. However, for software distributed as source, gamma testing
   can make the difference between a program that works and a program
   that works on dozens of platforms.

From [email protected] Tue Jul 28 17:18:38 1992
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:2569 news.groups:54749 comp.sources.d:8012 alt.sources.d:3245
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,comp.sources.d,alt.sources.d
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: [email protected] (Kent Landfield)
Subject: CFV: comp.sources.testers
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: poster
Summary: Let's improve the underlying beta test support on the net
X-Md4-Signature: 2c297a5ffec296e797d3371974bdcdfc
Keywords:  beta, testing, portability
Sender: [email protected] (David C Lawrence)
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: Sterling Software
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:25:18 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 69

This is the first call for votes for an unmoderated group to match software 
packages with people willing to test the packages.  The RFD was published 
approximately two months ago, and the discussion surrounding the group's 
creation were generally positive.  Time to put it to a vote.

NAME:
    comp.sources.testers

STATUS:  
    unmoderated

CHARTER:

  The purpose of this newsgroup is to give authors of software packages a place
  to post in hopes of finding people willing to test their packages.  No source 
  will ever be posted to comp.sources.testers.  comp.sources.testers can work 
  as a first stage before posting to any of the source groups, including 
  alt.sources, comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc, comp.sources.games, the 
  various machine specific source groups, and even comp.sources.reviewed.  
  Most of the subject lines should look like

    Subject: Need beta testers for ppmtovcr, another portable bitmap converter

  or perhaps final announcements like

    Subject: Done with gamma testing for ppmtovcr, posted to c.s.misc

  along with acknowledgments. Crossposts into comp.sources.testers are fine 
  when there's an appropriate subject group. Topics like

     Subject: What metrics do you use for evaluating object-oriented programs?

  belong in comp.software-eng, not comp.sources.testers.


VOTING PROCEDURE:

  Send votes to: [email protected]   or   uunet!sparky!votes

  Preferably your message should include one of the following lines
  in the body of the text:

      I vote YES for comp.sources.testers
      I vote NO for comp.sources.testers

  I will be flexible in accepting other wording providing your vote 
  is made clear and unambiguous.  If I receive more than one vote
  from the same account;

    o If the votes are for the same side of the issue, I will
      count the votes as one vote. I will send email informing
      the voter that their vote is only being counted once.

    o If the votes are for opposite sides of the issue, I will
      throw out both votes. I will send email informing the
      voter that their vote is being discounted in this case.

  The voting period ends at 00:00 EDT on Thursday, Aug 20, 1992. In order
  for your vote to be counted I must receive it before then.

COMMENTS:
  
  The guidelines for successful creation of a new newsgroup require
  that the vote taker receive 100 more YES votes than NO votes, and that
  the YES votes be at least 2/3 of all valid votes cast. I will send a 
  mass acknowledgement of votes received approximately half way through
  the voting period.

			-Kent+

From [email protected] Mon Aug 24 22:22:45 1992
Xref: uunet news.announce.newgroups:2646 news.groups:55739 comp.sources.d:8087 alt.sources.d:3330
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,comp.sources.d,alt.sources.d
Path: uunet!bounce-back
From: [email protected] (Kent Landfield)
Subject: RESULT: comp.sources.testers passes 120:17
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: news.groups
Sender: [email protected] (David C Lawrence)
Organization: Sterling Software
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 22:37:32 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 190

The vote for the unmoderated group comp.sources.testers is over.  The group 
passed 120 YES votes to 17 NO votes.  The guidelines for successful creation 
of a new newsgroup require that the votetaker receive 100 more YES votes than 
NO votes, and that the YES votes be at least 2/3 of all valid votes cast. 

There will now be a 5 day waiting period during which time you will have a 
chance to correct any errors in the list of votes received.  If, after the 
waiting period, there were no serious objections that might invalidate the 
vote, the newgroup message will be sent out by the news.announce.newgroups 
moderator.  This was a close vote so please take the time to assure there
was no error.  If there was an error, send mail to [email protected]

Thanks to all who participated in the vote.

CHARTER:

  The purpose of this newsgroup is to give authors of software packages a 
  place to post in hopes of finding people willing to test their packages.  
  No source will ever be posted to comp.sources.testers.  c.s.testers can 
  work as a first stage before posting to any of the source groups, including 
  alt.sources, comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc, comp.sources.games, the 
  various machine specific source groups, and even comp.sources.reviewed.  
  Most of the subject lines should look like

    Subject: Need beta testers for ppmtovcr, another portable bitmap converter

  or perhaps final announcements like

    Subject: Done with gamma testing for ppmtovcr, posted to c.s.misc

  along with acknowledgments. Crossposts into comp.sources.testers are fine 
  when there's an appropriate subject group. Topics like

     Subject: What metrics do you use for evaluating object-oriented programs?

  belong in comp.software-eng, not comp.sources.testers.


##############################################
# YES Votes Received for comp.sources.testers
#
#  Received 120 Yes votes
#
Adam Bryant             - [email protected]
Aditya Palande          - [email protected]
Adrian Wontroba         - [email protected]
Alan P Barrett          - [email protected]
Andrew Herbert          - [email protected]
Andy Finkenstadt        - [email protected]
Bengt Larsson           - [email protected]
Bengt Martensson        - [email protected]
Beth Schwindt           - [email protected]
Bill Bogstad            - [email protected]
Bjoern Stabell          - [email protected]
Bjorn Knutsson          - [email protected]
Bo Kullmar              - [email protected] 
Brandon S. Allbery      - [email protected]
Brian Eck               - [email protected]
Carl Edman              - [email protected]
Carl J Lydick           - [email protected]
Carsten Grammes         - [email protected]
Charles Carvalho        - [email protected]
Charlie Towne           - [email protected]
Chip Salzenberg         - [email protected]
Chris Lewis             - [email protected]
Christoph Weber-Fahr    - [email protected]
Christopher Samuel      - [email protected]
Colin Bell              - [email protected]
Dan Bernstein           - [email protected]
Dan Jacobson            - [email protected]
DaviD W. Sanderson      - [email protected]
David Buscher           - [email protected]
David Dick              - [email protected]
David H. Brierley       - [email protected]
David Hendrix           - [email protected]
David Hobley            - [email protected]
David Partain           - [email protected]
David Raz               - [email protected]
David Wald              - [email protected]
David Wilkinson         - [email protected]
Diab Jerius             - [email protected]
Dmitry S. Kohmanyuk     - [email protected]
Ed McGuire              - [email protected]
Eric A. Litman          - [email protected]
Eric Hunt               - [email protected]
Franck LATREMOLIERE     - [email protected]
Frank Nusselder         - [email protected]
Frank Seitz             - [email protected]
Geoff C. Wing           - [email protected]
Gerald Allen Kalafut    - [email protected]
Gregory G. Woodbury     - [email protected]
Hans Trompert           - [email protected]
Heiko Schlichting       - [email protected]
Jack Bailey             - [email protected]
Jamie Gritton           - [email protected]
Jan Dj{rv               - [email protected]
Jay Maynard             - [email protected]
Jayesh Thakrar          - [email protected]
Jens Kjerte             - [email protected]
Jesse Buckley           - [email protected]
Jim Ault                - [email protected]
Jim Davis               - [email protected]
Jim Meyering            - [email protected]
Joe Hartley             - [email protected]
Joe Keane               - [email protected]
Joel Rosi-Schwartz      - [email protected]
John Harkin             - [email protected]
John Martin             - [email protected]
John R. Dennison        - [email protected]
Jon Brinkmann           - [email protected]
Jonathan I. Kamens      - [email protected]
Juergen Nickelsen       - [email protected]
Keith WACLENA           - [email protected]
Ken Pizzini             - [email protected]
Kenn "Jazz" Booth II    - [email protected]
Kent Landfield          - uunet!kent
Kevin Braunsdorf        - [email protected]
Kevin W. Reed           - [email protected]
Kim DeVaughn            - [email protected]
Kjetil Torgrim Homme    - [email protected]
Lars Wirzenius          - [email protected]
Len Charest             - [email protected]
Linda M. Fitzpatrick    - [email protected]
Malcolm Mladenovic      - [email protected]
Mark "Crimson" Friedman - [email protected]
Mark Delany             - [email protected]
Marshall Midden         - m4@unet.umn.edu
Matthias Urlichs        - urlichs@smurf.sub.org
Mustafa Soysal          - mistik@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us
Nick Holloway           - alfie@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Olaf Klein              - oklein@smallo.bo.open.de
Patrick Schaaf          - bof@midget.saar.de
Pete Bevin              - pete@sst.icl.co.uk
Pierre Uszynski         - pierre@kaboom.PRPA.Philips.COM
Raj Manandhar           - raj@cfa272.harvard.edu
Randy J Ray             - rray@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com
Richard A. Golding      - golding@arapaho.ucsc.edu
Rick Ellis              - rick@ofa123.fidonet.org
Rod Whitby              - rwhitby@research.canon.oz.au
Roland Kaltefleiter     - kaltef@theo-physik.uni-kiel.dbp.de
Roland Schock           - schock@rds.sta.sub.org
Russell Schulz          - russell@alpha3.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Sascha Wildner          - swildner@channelz.gun.de
Sean Casey              - sean@ms.uky.edu
Stefan Linnemann        - Stefan.Linnemann@cri.leidenuniv.nl
Steve Simmons           - scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us
Stig Rune Kristoffersen - stigkr@ifi.uio.no
Tak                     - mtakacs@u.washington.edu
Thomas Koenig           - ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz
Thorsten Kitz           - Thorsten_Kitz@mk.maus.de
Tim Ramsey              - tar@math.ksu.edu
Timothy Shimeall        - shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil
Tod B Bussert           - tbbusser@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu
Tom Lane                - Tom.Lane@G.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Tomoharu Takeuchi       - takeuchi@osa.dec.com
William E Davidsen      - davidsen@ariel.crd.ge.com
William Moxley          - mox@vpnet.chi.il.us
William Welch           - wcwelch@waynar.lcec.lockheed.com
asnow@whamt.att.com
cc_s525@kingston.ac.uk
marier@blkcmb.zso.dec.com
mike@uel.com
nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk
##############################################
# NO Votes Received for comp.sources.testers
#
#  Received 17 No votes
#
Carl Rigney             - cdr@kpc.com
Chip Rosenthal          - chip@chinacat.unicom.com
Christian Finger        - Christian.Finger@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
Cliff Tuel              - ctuel@nike.calpoly.edu 
David Barr              - barr@darwin.psu.edu
Irving Wolfe            - Irving_Wolfe@happy-man.com
John F. Haugh II        - jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Marc Moorcroft          - smarry@zooid.guild.org
Patrick Tufts           - zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
Paul Eggert             - eggert@twinsun.com
Pete Akerson            - akerson@srg.af.mil 
Rich Salz               - rsalz@osf.org
Richard H. Miller       - rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu 
Richard Kulawiec        - rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu
Sean Eric Fagan         - sef@kithrup.com
Steve Rogers            - srogers@tad.eds.com 
Todd Cooper             - uvmark!todd%merk@merk.merk.com
-- 
Kent Landfield                   INTERNET: kent@IMD.Sterling.COM
Sterling Software, IMD           UUCP:     uunet!sparky!kent
Phone:    (402) 291-8300         FAX:      (402) 291-4362
Please send comp.sources.misc-related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.

From brnstnd@nyu.edu Mon Sep 11 20:58:57 1995
Xref: rpi news.announce.newgroups:1305 news.groups:29162 comp.sources.d:4155
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,comp.sources.d
Path: rpi!bounce-back
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Subject: RFD:  comp.sources.testers
Followup-To: news.groups
Sender: tale@cs.rpi.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: cs.rpi.edu
Date: 29 Jul 91 03:19:26 GMT
Approved: tale@rpi.edu
Lines: 53
Status: RO
X-Status: 

This is a call for discussion for an unmoderated group to match software
packages with people willing to test the packages. In several ways
comp.sources.testers will be the opposite of comp.sources.wanted: in the
latter, people who want a program try to find people who have that
software, and in the former, it's the other way around. No source will
ever be posted to comp.sources.testers. Most of the subject lines should
look like

   Subject: Need beta testers for ppmtovcr, another portable bitmap converter

or perhaps final announcements like

   Subject: Done with gamma testing for ppmtovcr, posted to c.s.misc

along with acknowledgments. comp.sources.testers can work as a first
stage before posting to any of the source groups, including alt.sources,
comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc, comp.sources.games, the various
machine-specific source groups, and even comp.sources.reviewed.
Crossposts into comp.sources.testers are fine when there's an
appropriate subject group. Topics like

   Subject: What metrics do you use for evaluating object-oriented programs?

belong in comp.software-eng, not comp.sources.testers.

Just in case, a few definitions:

   alpha testing: Software in alpha test is more an expression of an
   idea than a usable product. The interface will change, the internals
   will change, the documentation may be skimpy. Alpha testers complain.
   Often a program survives alpha testing only because its programmer
   can browbeat a few close friends into trying it out.

   beta testing: Software in beta test includes most or all of the
   features which the author thinks it needs. In other words, the
   interface is usable. On the other hand, the package hasn't been
   tested thoroughly and probably has quite a few bugs. Beta testers try
   to use the software as they would use the finished product, and
   report on what goes wrong and what major features they think have
   been left out. This is usually the longest stage of testing.

   gamma testing: Software in gamma test works. Sure, there might be a
   few bugs here and there, but hopefuly nothing more than an annoyance.
   Gamma testers point out portability enhancements, small or large bugs
   but never critical problems, extra useful features they'd like to
   see. This stage is often left out, especially in commercial packages
   where getting something out the door is more important than adding
   the extra touches which are going to appear in the next version
   anyway. However, for software distributed as source, gamma testing
   can make the difference between a program that works and a program
   that works on dozens of platforms.

---Dan

 
USENET FACT: Flaming
Flaming is the hostile interaction between multiple Usenet users.