[trustable-software] We've got this all wrong !

[Paul Sherwood]

Hi Edmund
On 2018-04-16 10:12, trustable at panic.fluff.org wrote:
> So I'm arguing we NEVER have requirements, we do have intents, we
> accept what the tests tell us about behaviour and use this as a RISK
> model to see if we are heading somewhere.

You're not using the t.notation so I'm not sure what you now mean by 
'requirements'. I'm kind of hoping you are right, but what about:

1) Re-development of existing solution using existing requirements from, 
say, DOORS - which do have tests, albeit retrofitted
2) Project which must satisfy a specific law (e.g. reversing camera 
video must be available by X seconds)

br
Paul