Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <415F28B3.3020207@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:16:19 -0400 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 MultiZilla/1.6.4.0b MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution References: <200410020702 DOT i9272wRi031038 AT a DOT mail DOT sonic DOT net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > No, test development should be done by people not involved with the > development of the software under test, or you have a conflict of interest. Not entirely true. There's "whitebox" testing -- where knowledge of internals is used to craft the test; this is often done by the developer(s). Then there's "blackbox" testing -- where only the External Interface documentation is used to design the test; this is where the developer(s) should not be involved. Both are useful. But that's a side issue. On the main topic of this thread, I'm agnostic. If somebody wants to do it, all well and good. If their tests reveal bugs in my packages, I will apply any patches they generate. But I don't have the time or desire to spearhead -- or even participate -- in this effort; my hands are full right now with enough cygwin tasks... -- Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/