Simon Geard wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Webmaster wrote:
>>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the
>>> check failed you can do nothing.
>> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard
>> many a manager say more or less the same thing.
>
> Harsh. Automated tests are primarily for developers to spot regressions
Possibly, but not intentionally so.
> in their own code - if they happen to be useful to spot problems in an
> LFS build, that's just a bonus for us.
I was addressing the purpose of testing. The purpose of testing is
NOT to detect errors. The purpose of testing is to verify proper
operation. Regression errors is one place where it's useful, again,
to verify proper operation, as you say.
Using testing to detect errors is a very inefficient and not very
useful technique. A more efficient and useful technique is to
use code inspections.
> Personally, I don't bother - they're critical when I'm writing code, but
> I rarely take the time to run them when simply installing someone else's
> work.
Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'.
You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own.
Mac
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
