PE> I don't have a test environment for QWK, since I don't use it.
PE> However, Brenton does, so I get him to do the testing.

RS> And since that problem with with the pre 221 netmail didnt get
RS> picked up by that testing, it obviously has some deficiencys.
RS> So I am not planning to rely on that testing myself.

PE> Yeah, the problem there was for the inter-zone netmail, I couldn't
PE> really send the netmail to someone else in Zone 3, but I figured I
PE> was in Zone 3 so it wasn't a problem if he just sent it to me, and
PE> that was successful.

PE>> In fact, I tell him what tests to do (ie send netmail to these two
PE>> people etc), and he does, and I have a look at the incoming netmail
PE>> or packets and see if they have the expected control lines in it.

RS> Welp, whatever went wrong, it didnt pick up the problem that lurked
RS> for quite a while.

PE> And there could equally well be a problem with PQWK221, you wouldn't
PE> know.

However I have been using 2.02 for a very long time and if it does have
another problem that I am not aware of, it must be one which is triggered
by some obscure combination or by something I dont actually do. Yes, it
would be nice if I could be sure it was perfect, no one has actually
invented a way to do that tho. But its quite straight forward to test say
2.22 carefully by comparing the PKT it produces with what 2.02 produces
to see that what difference there are are acceptible. Which happens to be
what I plan to do.

Notice you studiously deleted the examples where inadequate testing
in the past has resulted in fangs in the arse.

PE> And when it does work, I THEN make it available to everyone else.
PE> That's why you always see Brenton using a later version of PQWK
PE> before anyone else (for anyone who can read the PID anyway).

RS> And obviously Bob and Dieter are happy with that level of testing.
RS> *I* and apparently Frank want to do more before we use it.

PE> They are ALL tested like that,

Yes, and it obviously didnt not pick those problems that go thru up.

PE> if Frank is waiting for any long-term bugs to appear, they are
PE> just as likely to be in PQWK221 as PQWK222

There is the tiny matter that he has actually been running whatever
he has been running for a while already.

Your nutty theory now implys that better testing is pointless. Thats crap.

PE> (in fact if they are in one they will almost certainly be
PE> in the other, since I only changed a couple of lines of code).

Nice theory Paul. Didnt explain the intrazone netmail breaking in
an attempt to fix the inter zone netmail tho. And it would not be the
first time in recorded history that an attempt to fix one problem has
broken something else either. Which just happens to why better testing
is a good idea on stuff that matters, particularly when the result of
something breaking may not be visible.

--- PQWK202