said:
>You have great faith in bug tracking systems
It has nothing to do with faith. A bug tracking system is just another
tool to be used at the appropriate time. In my world, this is typically
at the start of unit testing. Right after the first clean compiles.
>where I wonder how the bug managed to get "out there" to
There's nothing to wonder about in my world. No tool is perfect. Some
bugs are created by people others are created by tools and processes. All
that matters is understanding the source of the defect sufficiently to
correct systemic problems and correct the defect itself.
>begin with. Therein lies the difference between what occurs today and
>what need not occur at all.
Here we will have to agree to disagree. Better tools will reduce defects,
but defects will always occur.
>The purpose of test data lies in testing all possible paths in a program
>with data that insures it does what it is supposed to do and other data
>to insure that it does not what it is not supposed to do. Probably as
The test data is only as good as the understanding of the process to be
tested.
>including Linux, progresses at a pace which makes even a snail look
>fast.
You are welcome to your opinion. Linux has come much further than OS/2 in
a comparable amount of time. I am only considering the time that OS/2 was
actually under active development.
>If you have any faith in Deming's approach to quality control, you know
>that the goal lies in the earliest detection of an error and correction
>at its source.
This is true, although Deming never claimed that all defects could be
elimiated by a single tool. He is all about the process.
>Now let's think here for a second. If a set of regressive test data
>exists, and there is reason to believe that sharable test data qualifies
>as a candidate for open source, why would I
>submit a build without performing regression testing?
What makes you believe this was not done before the build went out the
door. For example, have you never looked at the built-in regression
testing tools included with Mozilla?
>Moreover it is as subject to the dynamics of change as that which it is
>supposed to test. The cost of maintaining it rivals the cost of
>maintaining the software. No wonder the thought of distributing that
>cost "out there" to beta testers is so attractive.
This is part of the definition of open source. Users participate in the
final testing process. Although it's unstated, this also occurs with all
commercial software, even that developed by IBM, so I don't consider open
source unusual, other than perhaps being a bit more honest about the true
state of affairs.
>testers, you don't need bug tracking or logging. You free up a whole
>hell of a lot of time in which people can spend writing (and releasing)
>bug free source code.
I'll be glad to beta-test your system once you have a real-world prototype
up and running.
Steven
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Steven Levine" MR2/ICE 2.35 #10183 Warp4/FP15/14.085_W4
www.scoug.com irc.webbnet.org #scoug (Wed 7pm PST)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-programming".
For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".
=====================================================
<< Previous Message <<
>> Next Message >>
Return to [ 16 |
February |
2003 ]
The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA
Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED.
SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group.
OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International
Business Machines Corporation.
All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.
