Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:32:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "R. David Murray" <bitz@bitdance.com> To: Matthew Whelan <muttley@gotadsl.co.uk> Cc: FreeBSD-Stable <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: freebsd test matrix Message-ID: <20021022072923.N83973-100000@twirl.bitdance.com> In-Reply-To: <20021022012432.3866.MUTTLEY@gotadsl.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Matthew Whelan wrote: > Not quite what I meant... there always comes a point when testing where > the rate at which you find bugs drops below the cost/benefit threshold > of removing them. It's no good delivering a bug-free product 3 years > after its usefulness has expired. It's also no good delivering that > piece of perfection for triple the price anyone's willing to pay. Ah, I see. I was coming at it from the "write the tests first" viewpoint. In that situation, you have your test suite to validate changes against, and when anyone finds new bugs, you add a test that covers it so you won't recreate after some later change. So no, I wasn't advocating spending infinate amounts of time looking for bugs. Release early, release often <grin>. > > In XP, you write the tests *first*, and then write the code to make > > the tests pass. This also saves developer time, in my experience (not > > that I always do it that way, mind <grin>). > > This is a good way of disguising the fact that most people don't do > enough detailed design - you effectively encode the design in your test > suite instead. Bingo. And then you *have* the test suite... --RDM To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021022072923.N83973-100000>