> 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/
