On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, [iso-8859-1] Aleksi Niemel? wrote:

> Me:
> > > - We need testing and supporting community.
> Hugh:
> > Testing needs to be done, how this is done is another matter.
> > Should there be peer review for submissions to the archive?
> 
> Peer review would be really good of course. I think, however, that it's more
> part of the development and does not relate so much to the releases.

I suggested this because of you remarks about freshmeat.net filling up
with rubbish [ruby-talk:04390].  

> 
> > Should the author(s) provide evidence of testing?
> 
> If they run the accompanied test suite, and attach it's output, that's
> probably enough. The report

A test suite they [the authors, originally] had supplied.
	[...]
> is the evidence :).

Yes.  This was also intended to improve quality of the software, and that
others may be able to spot things that should have been tested but were
not.  Future test suites would then improve.

> 
> meant. But I can't imagine why people would like to "cheat" or forge

I was thinking more of: "I threw this together and haven't bothered to
make any attempt to prove it works.  Can it be put it the archive so
people can benefit from it?", to which the answer should be "No."

> results. And if they want forge there's probably nothing preventing them, or
> helping us to detect it.

The test suite.  "You claim to have run this under Solaris7, but {x,y,z}
all agree it doesn't work under Solaris7."
> 
> 	- Aleksi
> 
	Hugh