4 ms·

The difference is not between code that need or doesn't need to work. The difference is having code for which having some bugs is acceptable, vs having code fo

by Fradow 8y ago

The difference is not between code that need or doesn't need to work. The difference is having code for which having some bugs is acceptable, vs having code for which bugs are not acceptable. There is definitely code for which having some bugs is acceptable: think about some small feature that the user can totally do without. I had to do one recently, and bugs were acceptable, as long as it was shipped in time, and working for the client specific devices. That code shipped with no automated test (testing is done manually), and a few known bugs not worth solving. On the other hand, anything that touch core features must be tested.

bpicolo 8y ago
> That code shipped with no automated test (testing is done manually) An issue with that is bus factor when it needs to be changed in the future. What if the original dev isn't around any more?
- Fradow 8y ago
  There is a test plan, and specs. Acceptance tests (manual) weren't even done by a dev. Also, the code has been reviewed and is documented. Bus factor really isn't a problem in the instance I was talking about. In fact, the original dev won't be around in a few months, and that's fine. The rest of the team will be able to modify the code.