home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!claird
- From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
- Subject: When do we inspect (was: Software Inspections. How many does it take?)
- Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 04:53:08 GMT
- Message-ID: <BzJK8L.6r0@NeoSoft.com>
- References: <BzB9J2.2q2E@austin.ibm.com> <BzEqpI.5yp@NeoSoft.com> <1992Dec18.145952.26062@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <1992Dec18.145952.26062@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks) writes:
- .
- .
- .
- >Let me start some new threads: WHEN should software be inspected?
- >Or: How many times should software be inspected prior to
- >initial delivery? Should software be inspected and put into
- >a configuration management system months before design is
- >complete and months before scheduled delivery, i.e., at a
- >Critical Design Review stage? What are the differences between
- .
- .
- .
- Yes.
-
- I assert: source code should go into the CM system
- from its first day. Stay close to reality (the con-
- ditions of approved delivery) all through development,
- and find problems sooner, rather than later. Some ob-
- ject that checking in source is too much overhead; for
- me, that's only a symptom that the check-in process
- isn't yet adequate. Coders should *want* the benefits
- of even the most rudimentary CM: automated regression
- testing, static semantic analysis, validation of
- porting considerations, ...
- --
-
- Cameron Laird
- claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
- claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
-