Unit test requirements (was Re: [Coin-discuss] OsiCbc)

[Brady Hunsaker]

Ted Ralphs wrote:
> 
> 
> A mailing list for the OSI is probably appropriate. I think written 
> documentation is a good goal, but realistically, it's easier (and 
> perhaps better) just to say that the expected behavior for an interface 
> is simply that it pass the unit test. If we design and comment the unit 
> test carefully, then any deviations from the required behavior will be 
> easy to understand and fix. This way, we don't have to try to keep the 
> documentation in sync with the unit test if we make changes. What do you 
> think?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ted

That would be fine with me, as long as we have some clearly identified 
individuals responsible for making the decisions on what is and is not 
expected behavior.  In that case a mailing list could provide the forum 
necessary to solicit comments and discussion before they make a decision.

I agree that that solution has the big advantage of avoiding the danger 
of out-of-synch documentation and code.

So, who should be responsible for and empowered with making these 
overall OSI decisions?

Brady