home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The World of Computer Software
/
World_Of_Computer_Software-02-386-Vol-2of3.iso
/
c
/
cbbs141.zip
/
CEL141A.ZIP
/
BETATEST.NFO
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-08-26
|
3KB
|
69 lines
Celerity Beta Site
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many people have expressed an interest in being a beta test
site for Celerity BBS. Most of them do not realize what it entails,
however, so I have put this file together.
Being a beta site means more than running the latest version
before the public release is made. It entails running potentially
buggy software, working through frustrating conditions, and your board
spending a bit of downtime. Your responsibilities as a beta tester
include calling the support BBS to pick up regular beta releases
(often once every couple of days), and most importantly, writing bug
reports.
A bug report should list bugs in the following format:
1: Name / nature of the bug.
2: Location and conditions of the bug's appearance.
3: Whether or not you could repeat the bug.
4: Version / beta date of the software you are using.
5: If there is any special hardware (ie: a non-hst modem, for example)
Example:
1: I get a RUNTIME ERROR 200
2: When I load up the sysop online tools' user editor
3: It repeats with certain users, does not appear with others
4: I'm using 1.37 beta 8/16/91 version
5: No unusual hardware
Bug reports should be contained in a standard ASCII file with the
extension of BUG. Valid names are "CIT137.BUG" or "ALTEREGO.BUG".
Suggestions for new features or improvements are welcome, but they
should be in a seperate .SUG file, as I rarely go after both at the
same time.
IF FILES DO NOT HAVE .BUG or .SUG EXTENSIONS, THEY WILL NOT BE SEEN.
IF THEY ARE ZIPPED, THEY WILL NOT BE SEEN.
I download all my bug reports into a directory, copy them all into a
response file, and delete the bug reports. I do this with dos
wildcards, if the reports do not match the wildcards, they do not get
looked at.
After going through and reading bug reports, I will sometimes issue
.RES files, which will contain my responses to some of the bugs
presented. These will range from "That's a bug I'm aware of", "Really?
Never saw that..", "Yeah.. keep bugging me about it and I'll fix it
eventually" and "Hmm.. that's a configuration problem - in your setup,
change....". They are worthwhile reading though, and sometimes I'll
ask for clarification on a problem.
The way that beta sites for a new version will be chosen is by the
quality of the bug reports for the previous version. For example, I
will choose 4 beta sites from those sysops who upload bug reports on
the 1.39 release version - tell me of any bugs you find in the 1.39
release. Bug reports are NOT judged on the number of minor nit-picky
bugs you find (although do leave those for me if you want them fixed)
or on the bugs you can copy from someone else's report. What I am
looking for is thouroughness, accuracy, and promptness. Those reports
I get earlier will stand a better chance.
I have decided to use this method because about 75% of the sysops
wanted to be beta sites, but only about 25% of them wanted to do any
work with it or put up with the trouble it can sometimes entail.