When is 1.7 open for testing?

When is 1.7 open (to us) for testing? Or is it currently only open to a limited number of avs until more are needed?




~Olympia

Seems as though that priviledge is open to only the few who cow-tow to the Lindens, hun. Too bad

*** incorrect response deleted ***

Well, the preview grid seems to be on 1.6.5 which I could log onto (2004 / Aug birthdate).

If someone else is in 1.7, well, hopefully it is people like Apotheus and Adam Zaius and not random FICsters.

I wont comment on the cow-towing, but it sure seems like there's some secret process going on. I would've liked to have been on that test process myself.

No access to 1.7 here...

That's because there is no 1.7 yet.

The Preview 1.7 group is open enrollment & had a meeting yesterday to get discussion rolling. SecondLife 1.7 is not available to anyone at this time. We're just in the planning stages for testing right now...you're all welcome to join!

I'll be posting a transcript of yesterday's meeting for everyone to view in the Preview 1.7 thread soon, so that everyone may remain abreast of developments.

If you're interested in joining, you'll be more than welcome. I try to be very responsive, so if you have any questions related to 1.7 Preview testing, you may IM me in-world. I may be a little slow to respond, but I try to reply to everyone. I'd just ask that it please be related to 1.7 testing in Preview...and it is surely easier to ask me in lieu of starting a thread like this.

Hope this clears things up!

I'd love to be part of this. ;D

I could pull out my top lag-inducing avvies and see how well they perform. And be surrounded by people with clipboards taking notes about simfps and schtuff. ;D

Thanks Vektor - I'd love to join in - is there a url or steps we need to take to enroll?


- Newfie

To join the Preview 1.7 group, just find it in the groups finder " -Preview 1.7-" I think is the correct name...it is open enrollment and free.

I will send you an invite, nonetheless...

Thank you for your interest!

Vektor Linden: This gathering is basically to start getting our heads together around the 1.7 preview testing effort...To start I was hoping to discuss what worked and what didn’t in 1.6, for those familiar with that marathon....
Vektor Linden: Preview 1.6
eltee Statosky: well on the positive side, the ability to see test descriptions before taking a test was good
eltee Statosky: i also liked the ability to see which tests had been taken out, verified, or were still open
Michi Lumin: Vektor, to an extent, I think that we got into 1.6.pre at a point where some of the changes were already in the 'too late' stage... I think maybe some more 'formative' and proactive testing would have been better there.
eltee Statosky: i would also like to see more of a library of smaller 'stuff should still work' tests
eltee Statosky: we got lucky and caught some bugs kinda jus playing around, but it would be nice to have a more formal arrangement for testing the parts of SL various people really care about
Vektor Linden: michi, you are correct in that we have another grid for DMZ testing....much of the decision lies however in the criteria that we have set for a stable beta build
Michi Lumin: yes Vektor, at a point where people can say, "This is a bad idea, at least in how it's carried out, that may have a widespread deletirious effect" before its "too late" to change the way a feature operates.
Rock Psaltery: Yes, I'd like to see popular games brought into the testing phase
Michi Lumin: For example, some of the building tool changes likely could have been optioned or compromised on in a way that would have caused an ease of transition if we got in on the process earlier.
Vektor Linden: I think that the 'smaller stuff should still work' tests would be a great "build acceptance" suite
eltee Statosky: yeah but it would be nice to have a whole lot of smaller tests
Chromal Brodsky: In world unit-testing, huh?
eltee Statosky: michi and i worked on some 2-3 hour marathon ones, but it'd be nicer to have a bit narrower focus for each one
Vektor Linden: I'll see about bringing games in
Nathan Stewart: also would be nice to see the builds earlier here, it seems we seem to get them and then sometimes find bug that have past the cut off time
Nathan Stewart: and you have to release and update the same day
Vektor Linden: Contacting the creators might be a good idea...it is in all of our best interest, I think, to test as much content as possible
eltee Statosky: also a bit more information on what expected outcomes are/should be, would be helpful too
Usher Caldera: I’m sure this won't happen, but i for one would spend more if not all of my spare time in preview if content could be transferred to the main grid afterwards
Michi Lumin: <nods to Nathan> ... That's what I mean about getting to them earlier, where the feature implementations are still malleable, and not frozen in the way they're going to be carried out in the UI.
eltee Statosky: we had some problems with the group land and object permissions tests
Lex Neva: can you bring over specific assets created after the db snapshot?
Rock Psaltery: Yeah, if you need help finding the creators, let me know.
Brent Linden: A lot of those tests were carried over from older versions (tests before user testing was the norm)
eltee Statosky: because we honestly didn’t really know exactly what the 'share with group' land setting was *supposed* to do
eltee Statosky: in the first place
Vektor Linden: We saw it Lex, but it wasn't a show-stopper. Someone made the decision to release
Vektor Linden: Yes Chromal, in-world unit testing
Vektor Linden: So far I am seeing a desire to get into Preview sooner
Chromal Brodsky nods. "I wasn't around for 1.6 testing, so some of this is new to me-- I'll try to learn fast."
Brent Linden: Smaller tests would contribute to getting more tests accepted and completed
Baba Yamamoto: I would love to see preview much sooner
Michi Lumin: (Just one note here that I"ve been biting my tongue on - Everyone's wrists look screwed up here in 1.6.5. but... again, -- this is another thing that could have to do in 1.7 : and in 1.6 - we were not informed of changes that went on.)
Vektor Linden: Usher: I am looking into that.
Baba Yamamoto: even if its in a far more unstable state
Michi Lumin: (Undocumented changes are... kind of a wrench in the works)
eltee Statosky: also smaller tests would probably help with 'someone forgot to do x' lets repost the whole 3 hour thing again problems
Nathan Stewart: i have no problems with downloading buggier builds
Vektor Linden: So you feel that it would behoove us to let the residents in earlier so that the features may be better tuned to what the population wants?
Nathan Stewart: if it helps find these issues and produce a more smoother final update
eltee Statosky: yeah vektor thas prolly overall a good idea
Michi Lumin: yes Vektor. One of the ONLY things that has steamed me in the past about LL more than anything, since 1.0, is the tendency to "dump an unannounced change on the population".
CrystalShard Foo: If anything, people who come here to preview should come for the sake of helping with the preview, not to get a prize.
Michi Lumin: And once the change is implemented, it's ALWAYS too late to do something about it.
Lex Neva: I don't see how it could hurt to get people in here earlier. I think it could only help.
Koyuki Michabo: nah, testing is for testing purposes, not a way to make money
eltee Statosky: mebbe not general access, but invite some residents in earlier in the process
eltee Statosky: people who understand the nature of early build testing
Garth Fairlight: less bugs is a big incentive
Michi Lumin: Sorry to be harsh on that Vektor, but it's something I think does have to be changed.
eltee Statosky: and won't be put off by the occasional hiccup
Baba Yamamoto: I would recommend that early preview builds be announced only in the forums... the ease of getting it on the website might lead people to think this is how the next version will be
Baba Yamamoto: because they're here to look and see rather than test
Chromal Brodsky: I think michi is talking especially about many of the tweaks-- things that are probably pretty subtle changes, e.g. redefining constants in the physics or energy limits, that have unexpected and subtle impacts. Or not so subtle, sometimes...
Vektor Linden: Hopefully meetings like this will help to generate better response to what the residents need
Michi Lumin: we get a situation where it's kind of , "Surprise, here's an operational change, and the feature and implementation is already frozen."
Vektor Linden: I will try and make the meetings more structured in the future lol
Chromal Brodsky: Or changes to interfaces that come unexpectedly and without apparent demand.
Rock Psaltery: People seem to often not be very enthusiastic about the upgrades, and I think that affects their willingness to test.
Baba Yamamoto: well a good focused group of testers... it’s nice to have a preview up constantly
Vektor Linden: Lex, one of the problems with alpha is that a lot of exploits become exposed, and we need to tie them down fast so that we can let folks in
eltee Statosky: surprise isn't always bad, but I think things that are surprises, should have a higher priority to be made in some fashion optional, so people can transition
Chromal Brodsky: Vektor, will the effort here be to help a test community give feedback on feature choices made by the dev team, or is that presumptuous and beyond the scope of 'testing' ?
Vektor Linden: A little order...but I am following, it’s just a little chaotic
Torley Torgeson: yeah and to have a diverse range of testers helps a lot because of the multitude of perspectives involved... different people approach things in different ways.
Baba Yamamoto: i would have no problem signing a NDA... for alpha tests
Koyuki Michabo: hehe yeah an IRC preview discussion would have suited me
Vektor Linden: Chromal, resident opinions and testing were critical to how 1.6 turned out
Vektor Linden: Yes they do, Torley, which is a great reason to really populate this grid during major previews of releases
Vektor Linden: Perhaps we can moderate this a little...
eltee Statosky: yeah Vektor, tho like i said it might be advantageous to have a smaller group give feedback earlier on in the process
Torley Torgeson: eltee: yeah and then scale it upwards gradually.
eltee Statosky: before things are necessarily ready to be hit by a 500 person at once stress test open to the public
Chromal Brodsky: Vektor, is there any sort of feature/bug tracking system specifically for preview that would be more 'open' to the test community? Maybe a preview bugzilla?
eltee Statosky: that’s another thing i wanted to mention about the previews
eltee Statosky: right up before 1.6
eltee Statosky: there was a string of refresh releases on the preview client
eltee Statosky: but we had no idea what was or was not supposed to have been fixed
eltee Statosky: we probably could have given much better live feedback on those revisions
Michi Lumin: yes, I made that point a few minutes ago eltee: We NEED to be apprised of what has been changed.
eltee Statosky: if we knew what they were supposed to have entailed
Vektor Linden: Brent will filter questions via IM and I will do my best to answer
Vektor Linden: Even though what I have seen has poured out chaotically in my chat history,
Vektor Linden: I am seeing a lot of valuable feedback already
Brent Linden: Oz Spade: What is the main purpose of this meeting?
Vektor Linden: Just little structure - I hope you all don’t mind it if we try moderating it this way
Vektor Linden: OZ: aside from making liam drive too fast, it is to open discussion about 1.7...in addition; I wanted to look critically at 1.6 preview, what worked and what didn’t,
Vektor Linden: as well as considering approaches for 1.7...discussion about the test cases that we used / will use, etc
Garth Fairlight: Him Strife
Vektor Linden: I value all of your opinions, and this meeting is to get the ball rolling, so I can run with it
Vektor Linden: so we all can
Vektor Linden: next
Brent Linden: Chromal Brodsky: We've been asked for feedback about what worked/didn't work from the 1.6 preview-- what is the Linden staff perception of what did and did not work in Preview 1.6?
Vektor Linden: Chromal, people at the lab were thrilled by the dedication of the residents (we’re all residents too)....
Vektor Linden: and 1.6 was *much* more solid than 1.5, which rolled out after 1 day in preview
Vektor Linden: Personally I can’t say enough about how impressed I was, and am by what happened with 1.6
Brent Linden: Please IM you questions to me (Brent) and I'll filter then to Vektor
Brent Linden: and here's the next: Huns Valen: About when is the first 1.7 preview build going to be released?
Vektor Linden: Chris is here, and will answer Hun's question
Chris Linden: Hi folks,
Chris Linden: So the question is when will the first 1.7 preview be correct?
Chris Linden: Sorry we don't have a specific timeline for that. I'm watching carefully the state of all current development and will be developing a timeline in the coming weeks.
Chris Linden: Short answer: we will know in a couple of weeks.
Vektor Linden: And I will be sure to let everyone know as soon as I am able
Brent Linden: CrystalShard Foo: Hows the "direct object-to-object" messaging going?
Koyuki Michabo: hehe i wonder where we'll be by September when i get back home
Vektor Linden: Chris'll field this one as well
Chris Linden: In development, but I don't know exact details at this time. Next q
Brent Linden: Michi Lumin: Vektor, how do you feel about residents having more of a formative position in testing. I understand that the voting system is supposed to do this, but we need a reaction-based evaluation as far as how new features are implemented
Vektor Linden: But I would like questions to please be mostly along the lines of testing....
Brent Linden: ...
Brent Linden: And a reduction in "surprise changes"
Vektor Linden: Well, if you recall we had a lot of the reaction of the resident’s factor into the QT, for example
Vektor Linden: We added functions to more greatly allow use of the QT plugin, largely as a result of feedback in 1.6 preview from residents
Vektor Linden: I hope more of that will happen in 1.7 preview
Brent Linden: Michi Lumin: Michi Lumin: #2: on that, what large operational and implementation changes can we expect or, look out for, in 1.7?
Vektor Linden: Michi, in regards to preview testing?
Michi Lumin: (I’m talking mostly about the build tool changes here.)
Michi Lumin: in 1.6, many people identified shortcomings in the new implementations.
Michi Lumin: As far as I know, those haven' been addressed yet.
Vektor Linden: Many have, some haven’t....you’re right
Michi Lumin: so if there's a new feature, that people ---- how can I say, disagree with the implementation of, what's the venue for that?
Michi Lumin: because part of testing is usability...
Rock Psaltery: true
Michi Lumin: 1, if a feature works as it should, and 2, does it enhance usability.
Vektor Linden: I will soon be posting some information regarding new features, within a few weeks hopefully
Vektor Linden: One of the problems that I had with 1.6 was filtering all of the information coming back from the residents
Vektor Linden: With barely enough time to track test responses, it was hard for me to keep up with other feedback
Michi Lumin: so likely we need a more formalized method for that.
Vektor Linden: I would like to explore new mechanisms for communication with the group as we move forward
Chris Linden: I should jump in and say: There was some feedback in the forums, but overall the low turnout of residents coming into Preview didn't help with the amount of feedback
Brent Linden: Garth Fairlight: Can Vektor outline the changes expected in 1.7 already?
Chris Linden: and yes, to everything Vektor said
Vektor Linden: Not yet Garth, right now we're having a pow-wow...
Garth Fairlight: ok
Vektor Linden: but of course Havok-2, better sim communication, etc, are highlights
Vektor Linden: we can all expect havok itself to keep us busy
Vektor Linden: next please
Brent Linden: Lex Neva: Someone mentioned something about bringing games in to be tested in 1.7. Does that mean it's possible to bring specific assets in from the main grid? If I have something I think would test a lot of functionality, how do I have it brought in?
Vektor Linden: Lex, I am considering an asset update for the preview grid
Lex Neva: Ah. That works.
Vektor Linden: So that it will be current
Brent Linden: Ice Brodie: Would it be possible to get a list of fixes to test with future releases, it was mentioned before.
Vektor Linden: Yes Ice, I admit that my response in that area for 1.6 was spotty, at best, but I think it was a good start - I was told that bug fixes hadn’t been posted before
Vektor Linden: I hope to work with everyone to find a more efficient way of disseminating information to the test group
Ice Brodie: it, as mentioned by a few people, would help if we knew what old bugs to check for fixed state.
Brent Linden: eltee Statosky: i just wanted to ask vektor if it would be a good idea to have a pre-formatted 'test sheet' for tests, that would be easier for people to check things off, or give better feedback on the problem sorta like how report a bug works now
Vektor Linden: Yes Ice, I have a small section for that here, and I did post to the forums a few times, but not enough
Vektor Linden: eltee, I am looking at something like that, that could be used in an inventory drop
Vektor Linden: and would be emailed to me formatted so that I can just parse it
Vektor Linden: I want to simplify that process and anyone that has feedback on that may IM me or email me @ [email]vektor@lindenlab.com[/email]
Vektor Linden: feedback on any issue related to 1.7 testing for that matter
Brent Linden: eltee Statosky: and a second question: would you prefer it if residents focus their attention more on the new features of each release, or went back and tried out existing things to re-verify them, aka what should we spend our time doing, to be the most..
Brent Linden: helpful
Vektor Linden: Well, first thing is first, and existing functionality needs to be verified, needs to be solid before we can really hammer new features
Vektor Linden: the havok-2 integration will obfuscate that a little, as it touches so much of the application
Rock Psaltery: Would seem logical to test old things first
Vektor Linden: but old stuff comes first
Brent Linden: CrystalShard Foo: How about using a dedicated Preview Bugzilla to track preview problems? We can use that to try and look for previous posts of the same bug before posting again, thus moderating ourselves.
Vektor Linden: CShard, we're looking into that strongly
Ice Brodie: bugzilla's been a popular suggestion o.o
Vektor Linden: next please
Brent Linden: Baba Yamamoto: Will it be possible for residents to join in much earlier preview testing, even if they must sign and NDA?
Ice Brodie: I'd sign the NDA to help.
Chris Linden: nothing to say we can't have external bugzilla
Vektor Linden: We're strongly considering it
Chris Linden: or nothing to say in fact that the community can't setup their own bugzilla site
Torley Torgeson: I’ll sign NDAs! just for the heck of it! lol.
Chris Linden: just some random thoughts....
Lex Neva: might be best if you run it so you see it frequently...
Vektor Linden: ok, I definitely get the idea that folks want to come into preview earlier
Vektor Linden: ok next please
Brent Linden: Strife Onizuka: For the 1.7 preview could it be made so everyone can own 16m of land regardless of tier?
CrystalShard Foo: Well, it seems like just submitting bug reports via the normal form flooded SL, so putting up a dedicated service will be interesting.
Lex Neva: or just make us all premium accts
Vektor Linden: Strife: I am looking at land requirements for testing, tier requirements, and total number of sims that we'll need. I am hoping that we can get a better assessment as preview 1.7 gets closer
Vektor Linden: next please
Garth Fairlight: better servers too?
Strife Onizuka: (it's tough to do land testing when you can't own land)
Brent Linden: Michi Lumin: Vektor: Perhaps we need to formalize 'volunteer testers', and set up a system where they can work on a 'trouble ticket' system; where people will, in a way, have a sort of "bug ownership", following it through from version to version, to...
Vektor Linden: Garth that’s TBD
Garth Fairlight: ok
Ice Brodie: this could be where really early preview could come in, those on pre-public testing, a beta team, would be allotted a fixed size, maybe?
Garth Fairlight: and sorry to but in
Brent Linden: ...make sure that showstoppers are eradicated. This would also streamline the flow of how things are reported, and leave a testing trail that can be more easily scrutinized to see where things went wrong.
Chris Linden: Michi: let me answer your suggestion
Chris Linden: formalize volunteer testing is in fact one thing we cannot do for legal reasons
Chris Linden: formal and volunteer are two words that don't go together
Chris Linden: that said, there are things we can do to help you help us
Michi Lumin: (I don’t mean an employee position.)
Chris Linden: which is why we are here
Chris Linden: in this meeting that is
Vektor Linden: I would like to talk with you more later about organizing our efforts, but right now I'd still like to Q& A and brainstorm a little
Vektor Linden: next please
Michi Lumin: ok. I was speaking more in terms of assignments of areas of focus, not really anything to do with Linden employment.

Brent Linden: Alan Edison: how about preview versions have debug menu with options for us to 'cheat' to get whatever money we need/tier etc. just for testing purposes?
Vektor Linden: Alan, that functionality is not available in any browser.
Vektor Linden: Next please
Brent Linden: (regarding in world bug report option: Esprite Xavier: Could we see some updates to the bug tracker as well, so that it could be better organized, things like bug priority and other menu options so it would be easier to sort through feedback?
Brent Linden: Related: Lex Neva: In 1.5, the "report bug" dialog allowed us to enter 512 characters. 1.6 allows 1024, which I've _still_ felt hindered by. Can you do away with the limit entirely so we can provide the detail we think you need?
Vektor Linden: Esprite, would you mind sending me an IM, email, or notecard with your ideas on that? I am looking at that type of thing lately
Vektor Linden: Lex, We may be able to add more lines, but unlimited is too open ended
Vektor Linden: leads to problems
Vektor Linden: next please
Lex Neva: Well, I think that's silly, but, really, 2k or 5k would be acceptable. 1024 is almost there.
Brent Linden: Not only that, the in world email only allows what, 4000 characters? that should be enough I think
Vektor Linden: I will be offering a set of guidelines on bug writing as we get closer, for everyone’s perusal
Chris Linden: How about moving bug reporting out of the client? It’s an idea we are playing with?
Ice Brodie: notecard method would be nice, could attach objects and additional screenshots to them.
Koyuki Michabo: I think reporting bugs there and then is better, in-game
Vektor Linden: Let’s not let this get out of hand again
Oz Spade: You could optionally have another way on the website, but don't get rid of the client form.
Vektor Linden: next
Lex Neva: no, keep it in the client. I need the ability to quickly say "this is wrong" as I see it, so I don't forget.
Brent Linden: Koyuki Michabo: How about money for the preview grid? Some of the tests such as the smoke test or group making tests require money, at the moment we have to ask yourselves for money to do this... maybe make the test-giver-things give us the required L$
Vektor Linden: Koyuki: Money will be re-enabled for preview testers soon, and is available now on request. I felt that people were taking advantage of the use of preview currency without helping to test, so I set it to 0 for now
Vektor Linden: next
Brent Linden: Strife Onizuka: could bug reports be changed to support inventory? IE, make bug reports notecards
Vektor Linden: Neat idea, Strife. I'll make a note of that
Vektor Linden: next please
Brent Linden: Strife Onizuka: the text is effectively a notecard, where inventory objects may be dropped into it.
Vektor Linden: Well I actually had something like that going in 1.6
Vektor Linden: and received many bug reports with objects and other items in them
Strife Onizuka: (sorry Brent im'ed asking for clarification)
Vektor Linden: s'ok
Vektor Linden: next please
Brent Linden: Chromal Brodsky: Unit testing aspects of LSL seem pretty automatable, but in terms of UI behavior, what sort of three ring binders exist for preview testing, where are they weak?
Vektor Linden: Chromal, many aspects are automatable....and I am making a list of test areas that can be automated, and what areas can use some automation to augment it's scripts
Chromal Brodsky: Vektor, I think, like the 'bug tracking', those tests should become web-content.
Vektor Linden: I know that the test cases in 16 were old, and stale
Vektor Linden: Chromal, not a bad concept
Ice Brodie: honestly I feel if the bug reporting tool is taken out of S 's client it will hurt submission though.
Lordfly Digeridoo: nooo don't take the bug reporting system out of the client
Oz Spade: Perhaps have a in-built bug tracking system, say a browser window linked to in the GUI that directs to the page
Vektor Linden: well for the notecard drop system I used for 1.6, my Achilles heel was not pre-formatting the data before I streamed it out of world
Lex Neva: I use dual screens, and I STILL wouldn't like this, because it'd require extra work and thought, waiting for a page to load, etc. If you allow reporting on the web, keep it in the client as well, I say.
Vektor Linden: Well if you can open the browser in-world then that would solve that problem
Chromal Brodsky: Lex, my only concern is that once a bug is submitted via the traditional interface, it is in a BLACK HOLE of sorts, inaccessible to other testers, etc.
Vektor Linden: We'll see if that makes it into 1.7
Huns Valen: harder to upload a screenshot that way
Ice Brodie: I'd still prefer UI, something more formal about not having to load an outside web page.
CrystalShard Foo: I'd like to see an in-world UI for a bugzilla style system. o.o
Oz Spade: I'd say do both really.
Vektor Linden: ok, I like the idea of a little webbification, good one folks
Huns Valen: with screenshots.
Ice Brodie: not too much, please, just a bit.
Lex Neva: And a pony.
Vektor Linden: esp. if inline browser makes it into 1.7
Vektor Linden: I voted for the pony
Torley Torgeson: it's a big release when you know you aren't the only one experiencing a bug... sharing that info with other residents and helping to experience and go through it together is very supportive and helpful. in other words, it ain't just your imagination.
Vektor Linden: Yes
Ice Brodie: knowing what bugs are already there reduces repeat submissions.
Vektor Linden: and a good reporting interface for you folks would help, you could see if what you are testing has already been reported in your version, and you'll end up not wasting your time
Ice Brodie: thus... we can find out if 1. they're fixed, 2. there are new bugs.
Vektor Linden: Yes Ice
Oz Spade: Right, or if you find a different aspect not reported of the same bug.
Torley Torgeson: yar, hopefully cuts down on redundancy. and it's kind of like x-files episodes (the good ones anyway)... with plot arcs and tension, and then some resolution but with mystery still stirring in the background.
Garth Fairlight: and add new findings
Torley Torgeson: Oz: yeah and combine those PUZZLE PIECES TOGETHER!
Ice Brodie: expanding the bug instead of "this is broke"
Chris Linden: I have a question for you. Feedback by email would be good
Lordfly Digeridoo raises his hand... did the feature proposal/voting system get brought up yet?
Chromal Brodsky: Also, an open bug system would allow problems that are possibly hardware-related be easily confirmed and reviewed by all representative hardware architectures in the testing community.
Torley Torgeson: and instead of the sometimes cold "it's a known issue" I prefer "oh man, you get that too? we're SOOO in the same boat together!"
Chris Linden: Question. if we went to an open bug system, do you mind that the community as a whole will be able to read your bug report?
CrystalShard Foo: Chris, I wouldnt.
Ice Brodie: Chris: I'd welcome them to.
Huns Valen: no, that would be the whole point
Garth Fairlight: unless a security issue, yes let them
Oz Spade: No Chris
Nathan Stewart: yes good if they read
Torley Torgeson: Chris: hey i'd lurve that, get the word out about it. it's shameful to hide bugs, it's honorable to expose them to work towards resolutions!
CrystalShard Foo: We want them to see it so they will not post another copy
Brent Linden: Privacy could be an issue, but bugs may be more well-written Perhaps a "share this with the class" check box may be a good idea?
Lex Neva: Depends. Some people might want to keep some builds secret. I could see an argument being made for at least the ability to mark a bug as "private"
Huns Valen: ya
Torley Torgeson: oooh good point. yeah... *checkboxes OPTIONS!*
Huns Valen: so "I found a way to dupe money" would be hidden
CrystalShard Foo: In fact.. how about letting them post replies under the bug report?
Lex Neva: Oh, make it default to share, totally
Chromal Brodsky: Chris: In the preview grid? Certainly. Arguments for privacy on the general grid might hold some water.
Oz Spade: Screenshots may need to be hidden though
Vektor Linden: Or perhaps making the reporter name private
Chris Linden: but marking a bug as private brings up the exact problem of not sharing
Vektor Linden: but exposing bug data
Liam Roark: Actually, I was just thinking that Huns, bugs that would be very exploited could be kept hidden.
Lex Neva: Oh, right. This could mean people could vulture the bug list for permissions and money bugs.
Vektor Linden: I would like to keep any exploits found in preview, in preview
Huns Valen: moderated list then
Ice Brodie: maybe have it so they can be made public by the Lindens? sorta... does this pose a specific danger if it gets out, then you can put the initial bugs out there when they are safe.
Chromal Brodsky: I mean, I'm trying to envision a scenario where bug privacy is needed and coming up with blanks. Unless it's like "1.7 broke my dildo" or something...:|
Nathan Stewart: you don’t need to show who posted etc, just the details of the bug
Vektor Linden: Chromal, if it breaks, you can come in here and test it lol
Lex Neva: how about, "1.6.5 broke my semi-secret inner functionings of my GDC entry"
Chromal Brodsky: :]
Chris Linden: Ice: I would rather not go to a system that needs to be monitored by a linden
Torley Torgeson: hahaha. well i wouldn't mind my name attached to them, but i see how it could be useful to "submit an anonymous yet very well-written bug report".
Lex Neva: No really, people might wanna keep cutting edge stuff private.
Oz Spade: Hmm, that also opens it up to abuse
Lex Neva: But really, the biggest issue is people camping for vulnerabilities and exploiting them.
Oz Spade: "Bug Report: VISIT OZ SPADES HAIR CUTS FOR THE BEST HAIR CUTS EVER"
Esprite Xavier: Well it would be nice to be able to comment on a bug so users could verify or otherwise make comments
Koyuki Michabo: but if some dishonest person found a profitably exploitable bug, why would they report it anyway
Chris Linden: yes, community management would seem the way to go. so you could police your own bugs
Lex Neva: If an honest person found it and reported it immediately...
Oz Spade: Perhaps a way of users to vote on a bug to have it hidden/deleted?
Nathan Stewart: well how about a reply to author button, doesn’t reveal the author but sends you say an im if you want to get in contact
CrystalShard Foo: Submit bug -> moderate visible/invisible -> Open as thread. o.o
Oz Spade: Say if the bug gets x amount of votes to be hidden it goes hidden, or deleted.
Ice Brodie: if the bug is money related and leaks, then there's possible abuse.
Enabran Templar: Lex, exactly. Honest people need an honest grid.
Vektor Linden: Lex, that’s why we keep alpha version closed
Brent Linden: Idea: We (Lindens) could publish bugs as we enter them into the database. Then the bug is checked and confirmed. Non bugs should also be published as such, so a search in a central database could spit out a "yup, bug" or "nope, not a bug" or "nothing fou
Brent Linden: und"
Torley Torgeson: community management would be a logical parallel to SL's own dispute resolutions. after all, with so much content user-created, it's only fitting a certain aspect of that be related to bug-thwacking.
CrystalShard Foo: Yea brent sounds good
Chromal Brodsky: It sounds as if there's a strong argument for allowing bugs to be "Linden Eyes Online"-- that said, it seems reasonable to say that most preview-related bugs wouldn't need to be so-restricted.
Ice Brodie: I like Brent's, that was what I was thinking, the bug could get put in public if it can, and hidden if it will harm SL to publish it, security risks.
Baba Yamamoto: how about a "report and hide this submission" button
Baba Yamamoto: for review
Michi Lumin: I'd love to be able to monitor even linden-found bugs, yes.
Chromal Brodsky: Online/only
Michi Lumin: but it would depend on the nature
Ice Brodie: but yeah, any bugs that can be published, I wanna put input into.
Chris Linden: Ice/Brent: We already tried that with mixed results
Chris Linden: the known issues page
Vektor Linden: Perhaps an 'EXPLOIT' field that would screen it from publication
Chris Linden: so I'm wary about trying that again
CrystalShard Foo: If you keep bug submissions from inside the client that may help reduce the "OMG I CANT LOG IN WTF" submissions.
Brent Linden: The known issues page doesn't seem to be updated often, Chris
Chris Linden: exactly
Lex Neva: I think even if you tell people "click this box if this is a huge security problem", some won't. You need to moderate by hand.
Brent Linden: My idea is something that just pulls from the database automagically
Baba Yamamoto: the known issue page seems useless <_<
Ice Brodie: Chris, if we can comment on bugs that are safe to do so (non-security risks) then we'd be able to update the data and improve upon it.
Baba Yamamoto: as it stands
Vektor Linden: Ok, back to the questions...I see some of you shifting in your seats...mind if I answer a few more?
Ice Brodie: Known issues is static, and is useless simply because of that.
CrystalShard Foo: Oh actually Vektor, that’s my AO. >.>
Torley Torgeson: i find it very, very helpful to relate bugs to colorful stories and anecdotes and metaphors and things like that. THAT way instead of it seeming clinical and dry, it gets people excited and interested that the issues are relevant and applicable to them.
Vektor Linden: Next Please.
Lex Neva: A kinder, friendlier bug report, Torley?
Brent Linden: Ex: We read the RT on the bug, test it, confirm it ... then it goes into bugzilla -- perhaps only the short desc is spat out to the known issues page, automagically,
Brent Linden: and ... here ya go Lex Neva: When we bug report and attach an in-world object, do you get full permissions on it so you can see the scripts? If I delete it after reporting, do you still have access to it?
Strife Onizuka: considering the complications associated with having LL run a bug tracker, maybe a 3rd party one isn't such a bad idea
Ice Brodie: but then we'll have 5 or 8 semi-popular ones, Strife, not one definitive one.
Baba Yamamoto: How will we go about testing the current features?
Lex Neva: aside from this whole make-bugs-public.
Strife Onizuka: (but there are TOS restrictions on doing that...)
Vektor Linden: next please
Baba Yamamoto: Will we have many many little tests covering each feature and its expected result?
Brent Linden: I'd like to note, Lindens can break the seal on anything ... just tell us in the bug report "it's okay to break the seal"
Brent Linden: Rock Psaltery: How can a non-technical type like myself help?
Lex Neva: Ok, that helps, Brent.
Brent Linden: Esprite Xavier: Any plans on implementing a mouselook HUD system that would make use of future HTML ? or some other system?
Vektor Linden: But I will say that if you aren’t technical, and you still want to help, I would be happy to hold an informational session for people that want to learn how to better test
Vektor Linden: Esprite: HUD ideas are being strongly considered.
Garth Fairlight: That would be useful Vektor
Vektor Linden: Next please
Brent Linden: Michi Lumin: ok. sorry about that. Maybe we need progressive meetings as 1.7 testing is in process; I'm not sure all of us know what we are going to encounter going forward; a lot of this depends on the nature of the tests and bugs.
Baba Yamamoto: that's my concern as well Michi
Baba Yamamoto: what's will we run into in 1.7?
Vektor Linden: This might also be a good stopping point...I have a lot of chat log to reread...but I can go until 4:45 if folks wish to remain
Vektor Linden: I am very open to that
Brent Linden: Okay the remaining questions aren't testing-related any
Brent Linden: anyway
Vektor Linden: I would like to meet often, I really value this input....you all fire me up!
Chris Linden: Alright folks, I'm off, sorry for coming in late
Brent Linden: One more
Baba Yamamoto: With Havok 2 coming in.. kinds of specific changes will we run into? is anything known yet?
Brent Linden: CrystalShard Foo: Most of the tests have been usability and new feature tests. How about LSL stability tests?
Lex Neva: Ok, here's a less important question... I've submitted like 50 nitty-gritty little bugs, are you folks getting sick of me?
Chromal Brodsky: Vektor, thanks for this opportunity to exchange ideas and Q&A. I'm going to need to get running; g'afternoon!
Vektor Linden: CShard, we did a bit of that, but it is hit and miss sometimes as these servers are a little slower than the ones on agni
Lex Neva: Over my time in SL I've sent in a heck of a lot...
CrystalShard Foo: I noticed some people prepared a full-scale test bed application for LSL testing, and that LSL seemed to fluctuate between every 1.6 patch released in Production grid
Vektor Linden: email me at [email]VEKTOR@LINDENLAB.COM[/email] (Preview 1.7 stuff only)
Vektor Linden: please, I will read all of your suggestions and feedback, I promise
Nathan Stewart: should we post our feature suggestions to forums or to you?
Vektor Linden: I know that after this is over, a lot of us will be saying "geez, this would have been a good idea" or "I wonder what Vek thinks of this"
Rock Psaltery: Has a version of SL ever been perfect before it's been upgraded?
Kona Linden: nope
Vektor Linden: No Rock
Vektor Linden: No software ever has
Vektor Linden: ok, email me please if you have further ideas, questions, etc
Vektor Linden: Ok, guess this is it....thank you all for a stimulating hour!
Oz Spade: Thank you for taking our input!
Vektor Linden: and 15 minutes
Ice Brodie: thanks for having a good informal town hall ^.^
Matthias Zander: hehe thank YOU, Vek =)
Vektor Linden: email me for log requests if no one gets back to you
Torley Torgeson: wheeee well thanks for hosting this Vektor.
Palomma Casanova: thank you Vek
You shout: ok folks, I need to run...talk with you all later!! and THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH!!!!
Torley Torgeson: here's what we need better physics for: LOW RIDERS!
Torley Torgeson: thanx for hosting this again!
CrystalShard Foo: Thanksie
Vektor Linden: cya all, this really rocked!
Vektor Linden: )

Cool. Thanks, Vector

As some participants in the meeting point out, the 1.6 preview grid was inadequate for testing some of the changes. Most people played with new features and building tools, but things like land tools, find places, teleporting, event schedule, group tools, etc. weren't really examined at all.

A plan is needed for how to deal with each category of issues. Some categories are easy to deal with -- such as "sandbox building", which it seems to me is the only category of issues that really got any kind of workout in the 1.6 preview. Other issues like teleporting, group tools, land management etc. also need to be examined.

An extensive detailed checklist is needed, not just a how-many-hours count.

Buster

Buster, I'd encourage you to view the test cubes that have been in Morris since day 3 of Preview 1.6. Many of the areas that you suggest were not covered, actually were. Extensively, but after having been in QA for 11 years now, I can tell you that I agree that we didnt get enough coverage on all of it.

Those test cubes were run almost 4 full cycles, amounting to well over 4,000 individual pass/fail cases run by residents.

The suggestions that you posted are very useful, however, and I would strongly encourage you to continue to give us feedback/input/suggestions/help testing as you see fit...I am putting together a strategy for 1.7 testing, and I think that we're all of to a great start, getting the planning in early, well before 1.7 even hits alpha...admittedly, with 1.6, I got handed the project on a Friday, and had most of what you see in Preview implemented by that Sunday afternoon.

One big area of concern is the re-writing of our current test suites, which are admittedly stale. I'll be exposing all of our public test suites to the public wiki for perusal/revision/additions, soon.

I appreciate your insight into this!

Vektor,

+ Can you provide us with a list of the various permutations of os levels. patch levels, graphics driver and graphics hardware so we can check them all off as being tested?

+ Can we have LSL commands on the preview grid which can change people's preferences automatically (for example llTurnShadowsOn(ClientKey) so we do a full coverage of what might be crashing users?

Thanks

Blaze,

As for part 1, I'll definetely try to get that list together. I think that it is essential to create that type of harware/software profile for this effort.

The second part of your suggestion I feel is not practical at this time, though it *is* a great idea.

Even if I don't run with every idea that people offer, it doesn't mean that I don't like it, or that I consider it unimportant. My dream would be to have every tool, sim, volunteer and test script that I'll ever need for the next 100 releases!

I am carefully considering everything that all of you say; it is very important to me that so many people are already putting so much thought into this - I don't want to lay waste to anyone's ideas. All of it fits into the broader picture, in my eyes.

Thank you again for the bright, creative input, folks!

Hmmm, actually it's more practical than you think.

Stay tuned

Thank you Vektor.