|
Keetron posted:The above is the reason that makes me think that having a QA person or department is actually detrimental to code quality. Man... flashbacks. In my old job a FairlyLargeCompany: 1. QA was on a separate department 2. Ops were on a separate department 3. QA refused to test anything other than ready-to-go, prelive environment with real data 4. Only the ops were allowed to deploy to prelive environment 5. Indeed the ops department required a work order to deploy anything into prelive environment 6. If we attempted to post stuff in prelive environment too often (say more than once per sprint) we would get poo poo from ops department for sucking at developing and wasting their time. 7. If there was an error at live, then unless it was egregious, then fixing it would have had to wait until the next scheduled update (say 2 weeks), because it was our fault, and the ops were busy. 8. We devs would need to write error memos and attend meetings on how come there are these persistent bugs at live, and what can we do to avoid writing them in the future. 9. The QA obviously didn't need to attend these meetings or write memos - afterall they weren't the ones who wrote the bugs. Basically these external QA and ops departments contributed nothing to help the developers deliver better quality software, and only generated poo poo. Not saying all ops departments or all QA departments are bad, but I think at least one level of QA needs to work with the developers, and the ops needn't be involved with the environment where QA testing takes place.
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:It doesn't lead to the discussion we need to have, just people not saying anything really. One false step and you're toast. Keetron posted:You are an idiot and this causes stress in others. I hope any business you are in fails because your are in it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 14:16
|
|