"Were there significant changes between the previous version of your kernel and the current maintenance release, or just bug fixes," I asked. "Well, we change

"Were there significant changes between the previous version of your kernel and the current maintenance release, or just bug fixes," I asked. "Well, we changed the compiler tool chain and added a new feature," the client responded. So, yes, significant changes. "Were the changes reviewed for possible side-effects on other parts of the system?" "We tested it before we released it and verified that the bugs were fixed." So, no, they weren't. "Is your testing automated?" "No, testing is done with a developer observing the test output." So, no, it isn't. "Do tests that verify bug fixes become part of the regression test suite?" "No, we have a list of tests that we run for each release." So, no, they don't. "Does your team use a formal version-control system?" "We make a back up before each release." So, no, they don't. Let's recap. Significant changes without a good long look at what regression bugs may arise, with only manual testing (it worked on my machine!), and no tests added to an automated suite to ensure that older bugs don't turn up again. No source control, so changes aren't tracked, and they have only a backup of the source code before the last release to track development. Yikes, though I wouldn't doubt that this is better than the average software development project.