This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution
- From: Charles Wilson <cygwin at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:16:19 -0400
- Subject: Re: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution
- References: <200410020702.i9272wRi031038@a.mail.sonic.net> <E1CDodHfirstname.lastname@example.org>
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
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html