Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 11th Jan 2010 08:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 403656
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Help needed there.
by spiderman on Tue 12th Jan 2010 08:48
in reply to "RE[7]: Help needed there."
All components will only be as good as the engineering process for the entire chain of dependencies. You can produce excellent code and, if you're depending on crappy code, you have effectively nullified any advantage of writing solid code on your side. Insist that any code you consume is properly tested; if not, refuse to use it.
The problem is that with FOSS, users will use poorly tested libraries, despite whatever you refuse to use/support. And that is the point I made. The user is free to do whatever he wants, but asking the developer to test software on anything his twisted mind can come up with is unrealistic. When the software breaks on the latest unstable Xlib, don't complain. It was probably well tested against the proper stable build. Write a bug report.
RE[9]: Help needed there.
by tomcat on Tue 12th Jan 2010 11:39
in reply to "RE[8]: Help needed there."
The problem is that with FOSS, users will use poorly tested libraries, despite whatever you refuse to use/support. And that is the point I made. The user is free to do whatever he wants, but asking the developer to test software on anything his twisted mind can come up with is unrealistic. When the software breaks on the latest unstable Xlib, don't complain. It was probably well tested against the proper stable build. Write a bug report.
You've hit upon a HUGE drawback of FOSS--or any environment that's so chaotic. If the software is running with components that it wasn't built against and which it doesn't recognize, it should probably either display a warning, or refuse to run. Video editing suites tend to run as vertical stacks for a reason -- it's primarily because they're extremely complex software that require tight integration and performance of all components in the stack. These guys should figure out how to validate all of their dependencies -- stable vs test build -- and lock down as much as possible. It's a horrible position to be in.
Edited 2010-01-12 11:42 UTC





Member since:
2006-01-06
How does that contradict my response? No [intelligent] developer should ever think that he or she can possibly eliminate all possible defects from his or her code. But it is possible to create unit and integration tests that are reasonably adequate to validate code coverage and conformance to requirements.
Reread for comprehension. I didn't say that a developer had to do ALL the testing. What I said was that the developer needs to have sufficient unit and integration testing in place to validate what he has produced. That's a different statement than saying he has to test it with every possible secondary library.
All components will only be as good as the engineering process for the entire chain of dependencies. You can produce excellent code and, if you're depending on crappy code, you have effectively nullified any advantage of writing solid code on your side. Insist that any code you consume is properly tested; if not, refuse to use it.