Background "section"

[ttimbers]

@RohanAlexander @SimonGoring - here's a very rough first draft of the background "section". I put section in quotations because it's quite short... I'm struggling with how much detail to put in here and would love your feedback. In particular:

• Is it OK not to do a full introduction and review of what software tests are and their types, and just point the interested reader to a good review?
• Do you want more information here about the academic studies? Or is the general sentence or two sufficient for each?
• For the industrial recommendations, I am guessing I should probably write a sentence or two on what their recommendations focused on? Kind of like an annotated list?

Any other feedback is welcome too! I know this is early, but I want to be sure I am not drifting to far off track before I write more...

[ttimbers]

Do you want more information here about the academic studies? Or is the general sentence or two sufficient for each?

From Simon - we should give the general consensus of the study that is connected to our paper (e.g., Openja finds some commonalities in testing, but also inconsistencies).

[ttimbers]

For the industrial recommendations, I am guessing I should probably write a sentence or two on what their recommendations focused on? Kind of like an annotated list?

From our discussion - yes.

[ttimbers]

Do another go of literature search to make sure I haven't missed any academic work on testing in the ML setting.