12 Feb
2004
12 Feb
'04
4:35 p.m.
On Feb 12, 2004, at 8:30 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
I'm really unconvinced that we need smaller tests on fewer compilers. Human monitoring is just too error-prone. Why risk it? Why not have comprehensive tests with automated notifications when something breaks? It seems to me that less testing can only result in fewer things working, and coupled with human monitoring it's just going to make things worse, not better.
This sounds like the right direction to go in. Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Jeremy Siek <jsiek@osl.iu.edu> http://www.osl.iu.edu/~jsiek Ph.D. Student, Indiana University Bloomington C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org) Office phone: (812) 856-1820 _______________________________________________