Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, James Hubbard wrote:

> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The code's been available for what a week or two? Do you
> >>>actually think that can be considered conclusive by any standard?
> >>
> >>Public beta testing (but closed source) has been going on for some
> >>months.
> >
> >
> > So you've been running these unscientific tests you're telling us
> > about being so successful for "some months"?
> >
> > Vince.
>
> I open my mouth and insert foot: Where do I get any of these scientific
> tests to determine if the latest and greatest 7.3.x will not fall down on my
> favorite Unix?

If you're looking for a tool to test with, there was an announcement here
not too long ago for one. But it goes beyond just running a test suite
against it. Many of the available tools are designed to test what works
and how well it works. Testing goes beyond that. You want to know what
doesn't work, does the database return to a normal state if the unthinkable
happens (eg. Tom's suggestion of yanking the plug), how about loss of
network communications or sudden intermittant communication? Or the
function that may not be checking its input that well - when it fails is
everything ok or did that transaction someone else was in the middle of
get blown away?

A gal that used to do MSDOS testing for MS (Jen something, don't recall
her last name) would pull a floppy out in the middle of read or write
and found a certain sequence would either hose the floppy, get the system
to reboot (don't recall the exact details, it's been YEARS).

Vince.
--
Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/
http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com
Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.