Chris Morgan wrote:
Oh for crying out loud. Go ahead and automate if you know how to. If you or
someone else can show me how I am willing to work on it too, I an not
opposed to automating all of the testing if that is possible.
In the mean time am against these large patches that are difficult t
> Oh for crying out loud. Go ahead and automate if you know how to. If you or
> someone else can show me how I am willing to work on it too, I an not
> opposed to automating all of the testing if that is possible.
>
> In the mean time am against these large patches that are difficult to test
> beca
Chris Morgan wrote:
On Sunday 25 June 2006 10:00 pm, Tony Lambregts wrote:
Chris Morgan wrote:
Testing once beats testing over and over and over again IMO.
Thats why you want to make the patches small. Small patches are easy to
review, test and prove the correctness of. Big patches are difficu
On Sunday 25 June 2006 10:00 pm, Tony Lambregts wrote:
> Chris Morgan wrote:
> > Testing once beats testing over and over and over again IMO.
>
> Thats why you want to make the patches small. Small patches are easy to
> review, test and prove the correctness of. Big patches are difficult to
> test
Chris Morgan wrote:
Testing once beats testing over and over and over again IMO.
Thats why you want to make the patches small. Small patches are easy to review,
test and prove the correctness of. Big patches are difficult to test and one bug
rejects the whole thing, so you have to start all o
