Dann Corbit wrote: > That is the worst possible test plan. It totally lacks organization and > there is no hint to define when the feature set has been covered. Ad > hoc testing is a useful addition, but it cannot replace all the standard > tests that have been used by the industry for decades. > > If you run literally hundreds of tests designed to ensure that your > product conforms to ANSI/ISO standards then the bugs that are missed > will be few and far between. Unless you are bad at designing tests. > > Designing tests is busywork. Desiging tests is boring. Nobody wants to > design tests, let alone interpret the results and define correct > baselines. But testing is very, very important.
I remember when I was with Great Bridge they said, "Oh, we are going to have a test setup and do all sorts of testing to improve PostgreSQL." I told them I doubted their testing was going to shake out many more bugs than our existing testing setup, and you know what, I was pretty much right. Sure, they found a few, but it wasn't much. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
