Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3618 mails)

< Previous Next >
[opensuse] Regression vs Changed Funtionality (Was Re: KDE4 - a dumb beginner's question)
  • From: Rodney Baker <rodney.baker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:48:18 +1030
  • Message-id: <200901282148.24862.rodney.baker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wednesday 28 January 2009 18:21:59 M Harris wrote:
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 10:16, Boris Epstein wrote:
Anyways, I am sure it is easy and I just missed the obvious. Any help
much appreciated.

The problem (white elephant in the middle of the list) that everyone is
ignoring here is that the KDE folks don't understand regression testing,

A change in functionality that is *by design* is *not* a regression. A
regression is when something that previously worked is now *unintentionally*
broken due to an update or change that had an adverse affect (i.e. introduced
a new bug), either directly or indirectly.

In the case of functionality changes, the test suite to test that
functionality also necessarily changes. This is not part of regression
testing. Regression testing is the continual re-running of previously passed
tests to ensure that they continue to pass with each update or group of
updates. Yes, I have had experience in software testing (both manual and
automated) in a professional capacity so I have some idea of what I'm talking
about here.

nor do they understand any semblance of backward compatibility

That is a different issue. It is the designers choice whether backwards
compatibility is provided or not. In the case of a complete rewrite, sometimes
backwards compatibility has to be sacrificed in order to provide new and/or
improved functionality. Of course, the definition of "improved" is somewhat
subjective and is a debate that I will not enter into here.

Its fine to want to build a new KDE (say complete rewrite) but the new
version needs to provide regression and compatibility. Otherwise, the
userbase is going to be VERY unhappy.

And as has been done to death here on many a previous thread,it is the
developers' prerogative to design and write the new version as he/she/they see
fit; it is the user's choice whether or not to embrace the new version in
preference to the old.

Perhaps the biggest mistake was to call the new version KDE4 - maybe they
should have been more aggressive with the "new" thing and called it KDE-NG
(for Next Generation) to make it clear that it really is a new thing and not
simply an incremental upgrade from the previous version. Still, that's another
debate that is inappropriate here.


Rodney Baker VK5ZTV

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups