Just forget NetCAT processes. Instead, start a new thread on dev with the steps everyone should take to test Java 17 with 12.4. Anything that doesn’t work we’ll create issues for 12.5. Those who want to join in from this list will do so on dev.
Gj On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 15:52, Kenneth Fogel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I will be looking after our reporting to the OpenJDK Quality Outreach on > the results of testing NetBeans with new versions of Java. As has been > discussed, it is NetCAT testing outcomes that could be reported. > > When I looked at the NetCAT page it ends at version 9 but when you select > 12 the number of test categories is much shorter. I could use some guidance > in interpreting the information here. > > This email chain expresses concern over the fact that NetCAT is so labour > intensive and is not as up to date as it should be. If there is something I > can contribute to help with this then let me know. > > Ken > > > > ________________________________ > From: Glenn Holmer <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 7:54:35 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [External] : Re: NetCat Status > > On 6/13/21 9:05 AM, Eric Bresie wrote: > > (3) by demo / manual (user tested - have a user move the mouse, press a > > button, select a menu, create a file, run a file, etc.). > > Assuming Netcat tends towards the latter here as well. > > > As I understand so far, Netcat provides the specs and a means to document > > things > > Yes, but again, the problem is that those specs haven't gotten updated > for newer versions of NetBeans, and new specs haven't been written for > new features of NetBeans. That's why I'm suggesting something less > formal. Who is going to keep the test specs updated? If the answer is > "no one", then they are useless. > > These test specs are non-trivial; you can see them here: > > https://synergy.netbeans.apache.org/#/specifications > > -- > Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682) > "After the vintage season came the aftermath -- and Cenbe." > >
