Re: [OT] TDD + Pair Programming

2006-04-02 Thread Luke Closs
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 04:04:42PM -0800, Jeffrey Thalhammer wrote: > I have never actually had an opportunity to practice > this, but I've always felt that the most obvious way > to combine test-driven development with pair > programming was to have one person write test code > while the other per

RE: [OT] TDD + Pair Programming

2006-04-02 Thread leif . eriksen
I have done the "two programmers, one terminal" approach advocated by Beck for XP developments (not just TDD) and it worked well. We delivered on time with all features present and correct (where correct means the application passed the customers Business Acceptance Tests - first time). I should

Re: Module requirements (was: Module::Build and installing in non-standardlocations)

2006-04-02 Thread Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni
Adam Kennedy wrote: While the code for the distribution might be able to die like this, the INSTALLER should fail in a way that is detectable and automatable. If the Cd warnings.pm module can't be found, it crashes (specifically, dies) and say it can't find warnings. But the problem isn't th

Re: Module requirements (was: Module::Build and installing in non-standardlocations)

2006-04-02 Thread Adam Kennedy
demerphq wrote: On 4/2/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: demerphq wrote: On 4/1/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Similarly if somebody has an error in their Build.PL or Makefile.PL are you going to say that the "installer" doesnt work? Yes, absolutely. So you would f