From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Przemys=c5=82aw_Wojnowski?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: burden of maintainance Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:34:41 +0200 Message-ID: <560D60A1.4090909@cumego.com> References: <560CEA6A.9000907@online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443722234 27662 80.91.229.3 (1 Oct 2015 17:57:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:57:14 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 01 19:57:06 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhi6L-00067h-Hj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:57:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54533 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhi6K-0001Na-Qb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:57:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43247) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhgon-0008MN-3S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 12:34:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhgoi-0005EL-DA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 12:34:52 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp10.iq.pl ([86.111.242.219]:60422) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zhgoi-0005BA-40 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 12:34:48 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 1583 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2015 16:34:42 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.1.102]) (esperanto@cumego.com@[159.205.203.96]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp22.iq.pl with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 1 Oct 2015 16:34:42 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 In-Reply-To: <560CEA6A.9000907@online.de> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 86.111.242.219 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190570 Archived-At: > as the burden of maintainance was mentioned: from reading the > bug-reports got the impression, a more strict test-regime might reduce > that. > > If a bug shows up, the first question should be: how it could survive > the tests? +1 In previous project I joined a team that couldn't do any release in 4 years. I've introduced automated tests and refactoring among other things and after 2 years we were releasing 4 times a year, with 3 times less defects, found much sooner in release cycle and they were easier to fix. Some people here work in academia so maybe don't have such experiences, but in software industry automated tests are a standard. Projects without (or with weak) tests are replaced with those having strong tests.