Really, why wouldn't it be realistic to pay a bunch of students for a
few hours of beta-testing (or should I say alpha-testing) some time in a
development cycle? I'm sure they could detect the bugs that every other
developer would detect right-away, but without frustrating those
developers because the people paid by RunRev have sorted them out already!
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553
Installer Maker for LiveCode:
http://qery.us/468
Buy my new book "Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner"
http://qery.us/3fi
LiveCode on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/runrev/
On 11/13/2014 09:13, FlexibleLearning.com wrote:
If this were a realistic option, Edinburgh would have permanent testing
staff. The language, syntax and interaction permutations are simply too vast
for any automated testing whether by machine or human. As Richard G says,
ensure your own software is robust with each new version and log any issues.
The cumulative effect covers as much as is feasible.
If you find a problem, log it don't hog it.
Hugh Senior
FLCo
--
I agree. I have always felt that RunRev should occasionally hire one or two
people for beta-testing. They could test new releases before they are
labelled pre-release. This would cost only a little money and safe hundreds,
if not thousands of people lots of frustrations.
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
