Re: BC, testing, BBC

Hello back Justin, Justin Patrin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:46:42 +0100, bertrand Gugger <bertrand@toggg.com> wrote:

Hello, 1. aim of testing is BC (Backwards Compatibility). That's what is lovely in PHP, Pear & friends. Testing and again ensure BC: "I still can run the same cases the same". BC is granite, somehow stable in cool environments, somewhat fused in hot developing periods. so must admit some BBC: Break Backwards Compatibility. BBC is a disaster for (package) trusters. 2. aim likely for testing: provide hints about BBC. If BC is broken, up to the tests to show how come over.

I'm sorry? Is this supposed to be informational? Are you asking for help? I can't understand what this e-mail is supposed to be saying. Must QA be only informational? perhaps I misunderstand the list's subject again.

I post here because "pear run-test" belongs somehow to QA as http://qa.php.net/write-test.php and more generaly, I mean QA is involved in testing tools (not in the testing themselves) I don't ask for help, my very discussion here is: Testing ensure BC, case BC must be broken (for any good reason), testing should furnish some hints about how adapt the scripts to be BC again. (e.g. test scripts must adapt themselves when BBC, so they know how to do that) The target of discussion should certainly land in some other list, as dev, I agree. Requiring improvments in "pear run-test". Granite not allways solid. à+ bertrand Gugger (toggg)