From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-27 11:25:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!green.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-xfer.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:25:06 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:25:05 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com> <3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com> <3FEB047A.1040100@noplace.com> <3FED9286.5050800@noplace.com> In-Reply-To: <3FED9286.5050800@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193 X-Trace: sv3-92eJG5KaiH2LWMAZEYgzm/yuABfCDFaeD2OvJHZchaJKji4V++0HqAtBo/V+HEVTUDSff8h4LIlBaLi!Jt5AY++bkBxqXpcuEwE6ZALHKMy2Tu0+6r4meIMnhqueH3x3td4bHS+aNdYTjg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3857 Date: 2003-12-27T14:25:05-05:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > A compiler is probably not so dangerous as a rocket engine control, but > failure to pass validation because some "trivial" change had some subtle > problem that the original programmer didn't understand is a) expensive > and b) embarrassing to a company's reputation. That's why on important > software there is no such thing as a "trivial" change. I'm a lot less forgiving than you are. On the first major compiler project I worked on, there was a development version of the compiler, and a "base" version. There was a 20 minute validation suite you had to pass to add anything to the development version, and the base version was owned by a daemon process that bound the development version at midnight, then ran the complete regression test suite on it. If there were no errors, this became the new base version. If there were errors repeat as needed. There was one individual who didn't like to rerun the 20 minute validation suite if he found a "small" glitch. The third time he did this, I went to my boss (the department head) and wanted to fire him. I was told that a layoff was coming, and this guy would be the sacrificial goat for the department. I mean, it didn't even require him to hang around for the test to complete. The normal--I'd like to say only, but it was possible to circumvent it if several developers had to submit changes as a group--means of updating the development version was to submit a directory with the new source units using a script. Twenty minutes later (or longer if the system was loaded down), you would get either an e-mail telling you the submission succeeded, or a list of the tests that failed, with error messages, either compile-time or run-time. (There was also a option to run the whole regression suite. I almost always chose this option if no one was "waiting" for my changes to submit something else.) -- Robert I. Eachus "The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- George W. Bush