[cle-release-team] lesson builder for 2.9

[Charles Hedrick]

I'll do whatever you like, but while local testing may not be enough, we all know that for most tools local testing is probably the biggest piece of what happens. I'm not worried about the reliability of LB 2.9. The differences from what is in production at Rutgers are minor, and we've tested the 2.9 trunk quite carefully. I had a student run through all combinations of the various features in trunk. He was quite thorough. 

However we're probably going to use the newest code at Rutgers for the Spring. In principle it's not a wonderful idea for the community to be using a version that has never been used at Rutgers. There's virtually no chance of a bug in 2.9 that won't also show in our copy, since all we're doing is moving the same output into a popup. But the split does complicate support for me. The likely cost is not continuing to do fixes to 1.3. It is being used at a number of institutions. It's gotten all the fixes based on our student's testing, so it's probably not going to have any major problems, but still, it's not the approach I would prefer.


On Nov 30, 2011, at 1:03 PM, May, Megan Marie wrote:

> IMHO, local testing isn't enough.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/cle-release-team/attachments/20111130/3de96bb6/attachment-0006.html