was (RE: ispell findings...) now...making changes

[John Johnson]

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Chanh Ong wrote:

> Thanks to Bob H. has done most of the research, and there are no
> major objection from the group.  I have enable the ispell this week.

** I OBJECTED!! **  (For the reason that ispell was _not_ tested--see
below.)  So what should I do next time to register a complaint?
(By the way, Bob did _not_ test, nor did he claim to have tested.  He
researched some specific points.  Which is more than anyone else did.)

Chanh:  have you learned any lessons from this?  

Allen and everyone else:  TESTING IS _NOT_ LUXURY.  There are some
things that have to be done right, and it has nothing to do with
"protecting state secrets".  There are many things which, IF NOT DONE
RIGHT, SHOULD NOT BE DONE AT ALL!  

=== JJ =================================================================

> [...]
> > On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, allen wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Chanh.  we do not have state secrets to protect...nor the
> > > luxury of a big budget for testing...or lots of expert bodies for doing
> > > the testing.  In the meantime...our users are the ones who are
> > suffering...
> > > and I thought THEY were why we are here!
> > >
> > > On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Chanh Ong wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:38:56 -0700
> > > > From: Chanh Ong <chanh at scn.org>
> > > > To: hardware at scn.org
> > > > Subject: RE: ispell findings...
> > > >
> > > > I think Bob has done enough testing and I also done some
> > testing my and
> > > > I have not run across any more issue.
> > > >
> > > > If you have any specific reason, let hear it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-hardware at scn.org
> > [mailto:owner-hardware at scn.org]On Behalf Of
> > > > John Johnson
> > >
> > > Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 1:48 AM
> > > > To: hardware at scn.org
> > > > Subject: RE: ispell findings...
> > > > >
> > > > On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Chanh Ong wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I do not recieve any objection in a week, I will assume it
> > > > will be put in for Freeport user to have a better speller.
> > >
> > > WRONG APPROACH!  We need to _determine_ whether that is a
> > > suitable thing
> > > to do.  It needs to be TESTED.  (And I mean _tested_, not
> > > just played
> > > around with a little while.)  If we are not going to do
> > > this properly, > > > > then I object to putting it in.
> > >
> > > === JJ =====================================================

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END