Re: keeping a fixed bug fixed (was Re: proving a bug is gone)

1998-11-10 Thread Steve Greenland
On 09-Nov-98, 11:07 (CST), Daniel Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will repeat my suggestion (since when I first made it, it was in a > parenthetical comment and I wasn't quite certain what I meant by it > anyway) for a "List of fixed bugs" to be included either under > /usr/doc// or at the v

Re: keeping a fixed bug fixed (was Re: proving a bug is gone)

1998-11-10 Thread Raul Miller
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let us see how relevant this is Here are my list of resolved > bugs. Let us see.. > > 29 bug reports. >2 cases whre reproducers were possible, one whereit is available >6 possible test, with 3 being noted as tricky > 23 cases where

Re: keeping a fixed bug fixed (was Re: proving a bug is gone)

1998-11-09 Thread Daniel Martin
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi > >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul> I'm not talking about a complete regression test suite here. > Raul> I'm talking about simple test cases. If the code dumps core > Raul> under some condition, reproduce the conditio

Re: keeping a fixed bug fixed (was Re: proving a bug is gone)

1998-11-09 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Writing regression tests for real is a hard, painstaking effort, >> often requiring intimate knowledge of the code, and often needs to be >> tied up with the code itself, changing as the

keeping a fixed bug fixed (was Re: proving a bug is gone)

1998-11-09 Thread Raul Miller
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Writing regression tests for real is a hard, painstaking effort, > often requiring intimate knowledge of the code, and often needs to be > tied up with the code itself, changing as the source changes. I'm not talking about a complete regression test