4 ms·
> if you depend on reviewers seeing that a change will break something, you are in for a world of hurt on any large project. I don’t agree with this at all. He
by beokop 8y ago
> if you depend on reviewers seeing that a change will break something, you are in for a world of hurt on any large project.
I don’t agree with this at all. Here’s a counter example: Linux.
I think the real problem here is that people don’t take review seriously and/or just don’t care about the project. We build these complicated, expensive systems that do all the thinking for us, not because it’s better, but because we simply don’t care.
Having tests is better than letting sloppy developers run amok. In my experience though tests aren’t really needed on projects with a maintainer that actually gives a damn.
- y4mi 8y ago> I don’t agree with this at all. Here’s a counter example: Linux. are you sure about that? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3177338/how-is-the-linux-kernel-tested https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3177338/how-is-the-linux...
- pathseeker 8y agoBad example because a massive chunk of linux is independent systems that have no overlap at all. The netlink code has jack-shit to do with a graphics driver from intel, etc. Within subsystems regressions sneak in all of the time that don't directly cause compile-time failures. http://linux-test-project.github.io/ http://linux-test-project.github.io/