On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 11:05:11PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > > >I've never been a fan of "regression tests" in the narrow sense of > > >"let's test for this specific mistake we made once". If you can devise > > >a test that catches a class of errors including the one you actually > > >made, that's a different story, because it's much more likely to catch a > > >real future problem. > > > > Heh. See what I do is envision a future 10 years from now when the guy > > who truly understands the planner and executor (Tom) has long gone and > > the rest of us poor buggers keep on trying to change and fix things, > > thereby recreating all these 10 year old bugs :) > > That's why someone else should be studying the planner and executor code > right now ... I've long wanted to start doing it but I've been always > distracted with other minutia ...
Sure, but people make mistakes. Incredibly, I think you can even find evidence of Tom making mistakes if you dig deep enough into commit logs and list archives! ;) I certainly agree that a test that will catch multiple errors is better than one that catches few (or only one), but isn't a test for a specific case better than none at all? Is the concern how long make check takes? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
