Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TJFCF-0001OH-Sd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 03:00:27 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mistfpga.net designates 208.91.199.214 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.91.199.214; envelope-from=steve@mistfpga.net; helo=us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com; Received: from us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com ([208.91.199.214]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1TJFCE-0000uG-LW for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 03:00:27 +0000 Received: from [10.10.10.55] (5ad2e75a.bb.sky.com [90.210.231.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: steve@mistfpga.net) by us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 524831E98012; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 03:00:19 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <506BAA40.8060905@mistfpga.net> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 04:00:16 +0100 From: steve User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Maxwell References: <5061F8CC.9070906@mistfpga.net> <1348605677.2284.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5062F4F8.6040504@mistfpga.net> <506301AC.90101@mistfpga.net> <50633F02.6030807@mistfpga.net> <50673D69.5040105@mistfpga.net> <5069A89E.7090003@mistfpga.net> <506B9197.2000202@mistfpga.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 208.91.199.211 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1TJFCE-0000uG-LW Cc: Bitcoin Development List Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin Testing Project X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 03:00:28 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/10/2012 03:02, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM, steve wrote: >> Im ready to go, more or less. Please check out the links in my=20 >> previous emails. I have over 400 testcases (8 platforms * 50 >> release tests) - Also I am not sure what you mean by bless, I >> take it that is a euphemism for pay? >=20 > Perhaps a bit bluntly here=E2=80=94 but since you seem to be rather bol= dly=20 > insisting on getting paid: that is not what i was getting at, nor what i meant at all.I am sorry it came across this way. Im a bit drunk. (yeah that old excuse) I was only trying to make an example of the quandary that exists, in what happens to the current donations. There are far more deserving people who have a claim on that coin rather than I. I have stated on more than on occasion (written in public and verbal with gavin) that I would be willing to work for free. But I would love to be able to ditch the day job. (however i see that more as services than mining/testing) rereading what i wrote yeah, fair play i can see how you read my mail like that. it wasnt meant to :/ i feel a bit of a turnip. the tone is not what i meant. it does read pretty mercenary. >=20 > With all of this testing where can I find the issues you've > uncovered? Searching on your name/email in the issue tracker > reports nothing, likewise I can't find anything in my email (beyond > abstract discussion of testing). >=20 This is a different issue. But I see why you have raised it and I would like to address it. I personally believe you should earn bitcoins for writing testcases, executing testcases, passing or failing test cases. in that order (failing a testcase normally generates a new one therefore encouraging indepth and recorded testing.). QA should not be judged based solely on bug reports - this is unfair and will result in race to report bugs. I have worked on a few projects that have tried it. This is one reason we need workflow and testcase software, so we can measure and compensate people for their work. As I have stated in previous emails I should have, but for various excuses did not manage to run a single testcase for 0.7. but I did setup a frame work, and I know some people did do some good work on 0.7 I believe these people should be compensated from the (limited) funds the project received... something needs to happen with those coins. I am sorry you find my emails abstract (and therefore meaningless?) this is a really confusing time. i dont know if i am doing right from wrong. I am trying to lead, without leading... i have always preferred benevolent dictator. I know a number of bitcoin businesses that are really keen to work with the project, but I have no authority, noone seems to. Someone should be able to say, nice one, thanks for the vm's. maybe use $200 worth of coin to get a technet licence, that gives 10 installs of each ms OS. slipstreaming in the service packs means you can have whatever era pc you want (and the vps providers will allow various configuration of vm's...) then even if you do it by hand you can still do 6 or 7 at once... as for bug reports, give me 1 week from now (168hrs), lets see what i can do. (priority, protocol, daemon, qt ref?) but still process is more important... I still think that writing and doing testcases should get more coin than bug reports. but from what I have read, the big bounties will be paid by the foundation. im not sure if that is true or where i read it. (protocol level bugs) it feels like I am wasting peoples time,and I should get back in my box. so I will. contact me off list if you want to have a look at the various workflow stuff i have done. cheers, steve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQa6pAAAoJEFvEB9dQFvtQ0H8H/jUjvzmsp61w1bmDnHR+KmF4 LNu7WwVLrTvrT8AHSNh3mClWvMM3muJJA7NMb2WthAgVe3jtrGimfreAlstDsObL XNEcGvU6WN1YosH0MkN7hyDl8jnrDFoiH1P5qsMecuZIxwq7Z0vCOHEJ9DPmZilW R+G8OmoGcpaeWs9VqXR6zR7Uyz69KaDAQpMRE1GTu3zQP9HSSolciy3ESeJRR9Sd yO7EcCGdQot80rOG/VIZ0wkOmzGGm1thzYzayD6Zn2eW4Hw+ME1en9ksIbXJFpSv IdgThEm7p5UuBo0jFkbX4Awrf9hfusZSEGWfhZqdASqqkSBnYqLmWF1sLprDRF8=3D =3DIv87 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----