RE: EMI Internal Results 8/17/07 - 8/27/07

From: Ben Grodsky <>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:25:16 -0700

Ben or Jay,
Would it be ok if Dan kept track of what server cabinets developers were using for protection software, while it's in the early stages? Basically, in a case like the below, it seems that if all that needs to happen is some servers need to be restarted, QA should be able to tell IT to restart those servers, especially as the soulseek protection is currently for SLAs.

From: Daniel Lee
Sent: Tue 04-Sep-07 09:24
To: Neil Saxby; qa
Subject: RE: EMI Internal Results 8/17/07 - 8/27/07

Some of the computers for Soulseek are down, so our effectiveness will be lower than usual until we can reset the machines.



From: Neil Saxby
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:11 AM
To: Daniel Lee; qa
Subject: RE: EMI Internal Results 8/17/07 - 8/27/07


Thanks for these results. Looks promising, (providing I can sort out their connectivity issues) - how is Soulseek looking atm?


With regards to weekly internally testing it would be great if you could rotate the tracks.


Many thanks,



From: Daniel Lee
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:26 PM
To: qa
Subject: EMI Internal Results 8/17/07 - 8/27/07


Here are the results for our internal EMI tests. The majority of our tests were passes. There was an issue with some of the project settings for "unklejam," but this has been fixed. Our Soulseek results started off poorly, but have since looked very good.


Neil, we can retest the tracks you gave us weekly, or begin a rotation where we test 5-7 different tracks/week. Personally, I think switching out tracks weekly would be a good idea so we could ensure that the projects are setup properly. Please let us know which you prefer.




Thank you,


Daniel Lee
Received on Fri Sep 14 2007 - 10:55:50 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 16 2007 - 22:19:45 BST