This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 21:07:00 -0500
- Subject: RE: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > No, test development should be done by people not involved with the
> > development of the software under test, or you have a
> conflict of interest.
> Not entirely true. There's "whitebox" testing -- where
> knowledge of internals is used to craft the test; this is
> often done by the developer(s). Then there's "blackbox"
> testing -- where only the External Interface documentation is
> used to design the test; this is where the developer(s)
> should not be involved.
I know, but if the developers are also developing the testing (be it white
or black-box), you still have a conflict of interest. Better than nothing?
Sure. But not as good as they have it in that Ideal World in which none of
> Both are useful.
> But that's a side issue. On the main topic of this thread,
> I'm agnostic. If somebody wants to do it, all well and good.
> If their tests reveal bugs in my packages, I will apply any
> patches they generate. But I don't have the time or desire
> to spearhead -- or even participate -- in this effort; my
> hands are full right now with enough cygwin tasks...
I think you echo the position of all except perhaps the OP there.
Gary R. Van Sickle
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html