Re: [boost] [Guild] Recruiting & Instructions, rough first draft

Subject: Re: [boost] [Guild] Recruiting & Instructions, rough first draft
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-15 17:13:06

On Nov 15, 2010, at 2:09 PM, vicente.botet wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim Bell" <Jim_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 3:48 PM
> Subject: [boost] [Guild] Recruiting & Instructions, rough first draft
> 
> 
>> Here's some writing I threw down a little while ago.
>> 
>> Please comment, here or privately. Copy my text for reference.
>> 
>> It's on my website partly because I've done some formatting
>> (emphasizing), as you'll see.
>> 
>> It's rough, and lacks some crucial detail.
>> 
>> http://jc-bell.com/contributions/boost-guild/boost-guild-recruit
>> http://jc-bell.com/contributions/boost-guild/boost-ticket-handling
>> http://jc-bell.com/contributions/boost-guild/boost-regression-troubleshooting
>> 
> 
> Thanks Jim for writing this. This seems to be a good starting and I hope the Guild will have a lot of member soon. 
> 
> I wanted just to add an idea that could improve the library quality. People that don't have the understanding of the internals of the library and are not interested in can as a user know how the library should behave. Even if Boost Libraries are well testeds there are always holes. This people could inspect the regression tests and the documentation and propose news test to cover more features in the library. That would result in more confidence on the quality of the library or why not, find a new bug that other will need to correct ;-). They could also ensure that any corrected tickets have its associated test.

I agree.
Having more regression tests is a good thing.
Writing good regression tests is surprisingly hard.

-- Marshall