Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto

"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> writes:
> Well, that is covered in the system that I took that from.  The full
> description is;

>  1. Identify a bug or missing feature.
>  2. Write the test that proves the bug or missing feature.
>  3. Run the test to prove that it fails.
>  4. Code until the test passes and then stop.
>  5. Run the regression test to make sure you didn't break something.

> This is taken from the principles of extreme programming.

The above is all fine as a development methodology.  The question is
whether such tests are strictly a short-term development aid, or need to
be memorialized in a fashion that will cause every other developer to
re-execute them every time that developer needs to test his own work,
for the indefinite future.  I tend to think there are not that many
tests that really deserve that status.

			regards, tom lane