|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-02 18:03:52
Dave,
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Apr 01 2007, Thomas Witt <witt-AT-acm.org> wrote:
>
>> That being said unless you guys volunteer to fix the tools I am in
>> strong disagreement with everything else that was said.
>
> Who's this "you guys," monsieur? I want to be a part of the "making
> the tools better" solution team. How about you?
Just too clarify I wasn't asking for anybody to do work, nor did I want
too imply that it was anybodies responsibility. I was just trying to say
that the only way to address the brittleness is to improve the tool. In
other words anything short of it-just-works won't cut it.
>
>> It is true that in theory what we have works IF everybody does the
>> right thing, but that's beside the point. My point is whether it
>> works in practice and I do believe that there is ample evidence that
>> it does not. If every removed test requires several emails going
>> back and forth, people getting LOUD and days of turnaround time then
>> to me there is something wrong.
>
> But as I said, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with
> incremental testing, since the other incremental testers don't have
> this problem.
My experience is different. We had sticking results for a fair number of
testers.
>
>> As it is the system is too brittle.
>
> That's not news :)
Therefor I am looking for ways too do something about it. Again I was
not trying to put blame on anybody. Without major contributions to
improve a brittle feature there is only the option to avoid it in the
meantime. That being said I now see that the tradeoffs are such that we
can't do that.
Thomas
-- Thomas Witt witt_at_[hidden]