> > The other main point about automated regression tests is that
> > they take no work on the part of the kernel developers to run.
Gosh magic tests - we don't need to spend time running them!
> in most commercial software houses, regression testing and quality
> assurance are usually carried out by different people than the developers.
> that leads to more scientific results. besides, some people are better
> than others at breaking things. someone with little familiarity with a
> piece of software is more likely to stumble across bugs (isn't that a
> corollary to Moore's law? :-)
Experience shows this not to be true. The designers usually have a better
idea of where the real complexity lies in their software. They, therefore,
have a better understanding of where to look for likely problems. Independent
testers tend to pick up problems in areas completely overlooked by the
designer, but often miss many of the problems the designer worries over. Each
type of testing has its place.
The commonest reason for designers being poor testers of their own code is
they simply lack a sufficiently aggressive attitude to finding problems in
their own work. It isn't easy to change that kind of attitude. Often the best
use genuine independence if for peer review of the design documents and code,
rather than testing.
By the way, in most software houses quality assurance is merely a clerical
exercise - not a model I would promote!
Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/