Mark:
It is very formal. We write, test things, and then let you tell us what
broke. Flippancy aside, we have attempted at various times to have more
formal testing methodologies and Eric and Gerald are just too small as a
company to do serious software testing and we have found that we get
VERY quick feedback here. Many of you work at companies where software
is produced as a product and you must be well aware how much it costs to
do the serious testing that goes on with software that is nowhere near
as complex as this. Eric and Gerald and the cache of volunteers just
can't sustain that activity in the same way.
Please, we complain and criticize ourselves enough when we do stupid
things and open source is just different. However, it is much more cost
effective!
Cheers,
Bob
THAT is a signature I can deal with. AMEN
Mark Amos wrote:
Bob,
Not complaining/criticizing, just asking because I'm interested: do you
have a formal testing methodology?
A lot of software companies have difficulty with testing, because of the
sheer size and complexity of the software and for a small company this is
compounded by the small size of staff.
I like your model (get lots of stuff out quick to the people that enjoy
playing with it.) I figured you would have an innovative testing model and I
just wondered how you did it.
Mark
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."
~Tommy Smothers
--
AMSAT VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
NJQRP/AMQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR Wrk Grp Chairman
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity. Guilty as charged!
