On Tue, October 23, 2007 7:10 pm, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Christian Seberino wrote: >> Andrew Lentvorski wrote: >> >>> It is, by definition, faster. There is no point at which your system >>> has less functionality than it did before. This is not true for a >>> rewrite. >> >> If an existing project is very modular with clean interfaces between >> components then a rewrite of one piece at a time is possible...assuming >> you >> aren't changing the original design *too* much. I don't know if CVS was >> a >> big monolithic spaghetti blob. > > It probably was. > > So, you write a couple small unit tests and start to de-spaghetti. > > The best way to write unit tests for a big system that doesn't have them > is to write unit tests *as you fix bugs*. The big advantage to this is > that the areas most prone to bugs wind up with the most unit tests. > > Once you have enough accumulated unit tests, you can rewrite that > section of the code and have confidence that you didn't break anything. > > -a > >
No no no nonono. 1. user needs 2. requirements 3. design 4. iterate THEN code You cannot test quality into SW. It must be designed in. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
