Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 7/9/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dan, >> I have to disagree with you on this. The testing should be done by >> hand not by a script. That takes the educational value our and plus >> gives a lot of false positives during a release cycle. > > Something else I thought about later. Testing by hand is just as > likely to produce false positives as a script. Also, a scripted build > with well formatted output is more self-documenting. Ideally, both > types of builds would be done to confirm each other.
I agree with you Dan. The way to test the instructions is via a scripted method. However, the text needs to be checked for consistency with the instructions and that is as important as the instructions. When given a choice, take both. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
