[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeal
From: |
Chris B. Vetter |
Subject: |
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeallocation) |
Date: |
Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:25:21 -0700 |
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:58:39 +0200
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <Lars.Sonchocky-Helldorf@bbdo-interone.de>
wrote:
> On 17.10.2003 21:35:01 "Chris B. Vetter" wrote:
> >There's no way a test unit will be able to cover these issues.
> The fact that unittesting isn't a "solve everything" solution
> shouldn't lead to disregard to the merrits it has to offer. Don't be
That wasn't implied and I don't, as I use them myself whenever possible.
> so over sceptic. Give yourself a buzz and actually *try* unittesting.
> You'll be astonished how many bugs you'll discover with ease.
I merely wanted to point out, as I stated earlier, that a testing
environment _cannot_ be regarded as a swiss army knife against bugs.
There simply are too many issues that would have to be covered.
--
Chris
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), (continued)
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for qualitycontrol), Jeff Teunissen, 2003/10/24
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Adam Fedor, 2003/10/23
- Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control, Ian Jones, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control, Dennis Leeuw, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control, Adam Fedor, 2003/10/16
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeallocation), Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf, 2003/10/17
Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeallocation), Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf, 2003/10/17
- Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control (WAS: Re: deferreddeallocation),
Chris B. Vetter <=