On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 13:29 -0500, Ben Liblit wrote: > Jim Cornette wrote: > > Is this similar to what the Fedora Automated Test Suite [...] aims to > > accomplish? > > Both share the goal of making software suck less. :-) Ha! Right on. > The key difference is that the Fedora Automated Test Suite uses an > explicit, fixed, human-designed battery of tests. CBI treats regular > daily usage as the "test suite", where any run that ends in failure > (e.g. crash) is taken as an example of a failed test. Well said! I'd say CBI does interactive testing (with nicely automated results reporting), while the automated test suite is non-interactive. > These are complementary approaches, of course. A well-designed > automated test suite is extremely valuable but can be hard to create. > CBI offers a different view of things, with less developer steering and > more focus on ordinary day-to-day usage. This is brilliant. I'd love to get you guys involved more directly in Fedora testing. What can we do to help? -w
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
