Message-Id: <200410030207.i93278Sm019165@delorie.com> 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 From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: Subject: RE: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 21:07:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <415F28B3.3020207@cwilson.fastmail.fm> X-IsSubscribed: yes > 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. > I know, but if the developers are also developing the testing (be it white or black-box), you still have a conflict of interest. Better than nothing? Sure. But not as good as they have it in that Ideal World in which none of us live. > 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... I think you echo the position of all except perhaps the OP there. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- 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/