Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: An interesting rebuttal of "agile"

by talexb (Canon)
on Mar 19, 2008 at 13:42 UTC ( #674997=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: An interesting rebuttal of "agile"
in thread An interesting rebuttal of "agile"

I think it's pretty clear that your development environment and mine differ pretty widely -- which is why you can go from a development build to a release in a couple of hours, and I cannot.

At my previous job, I was the only web developer. I was also the only 24/7 support person, and the only internal support persion. I also got the opportunity to bounce ideas off the CTO, and have him bounce ideas off me. My test persion was actually working full-time on Production and I had to schedule a few hours for her to get time to test a build (development sometimes -- milestone and release always).

But I also strongly believe that it's important for software to released as a 'slightly used' version, rather than something fresh and hot from the repository and the QA department. That may be a result of the staffing available to me, but it makes more sense to me to bang around a release for a few days, and then say, "Well, no show-stoppers in the last few days -- let's release!"

Alex / talexb / Toronto

"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds


Comment on Re^5: An interesting rebuttal of "agile"
Re^6: An interesting rebuttal of "agile"
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Mar 19, 2008 at 18:21 UTC
    That may be a result of the staffing available to me, but it makes more sense to me to bang around a release for a few days, and then say, "Well, no show-stoppers in the last few days -- let's release!"

    I've also worked in very small teams where we had no dedicated QA. Even then, I have a severe distrust of the kind of ad hoc testing you get from banging around a release for a few days to see if any of the bugs in the product somehow appear. If anyone finds a bug, I want to find it, understand it, fix it for good, and then ensure that it and bugs like it can never appear again. I don't think you get that without serious testing and root cause analysis, and I know you don't get that often (if ever) if QA is a separate entity from development.

      If anyone finds a bug, I want to find it, understand it, fix it for good, and then ensure that it and bugs like it can never appear again. I don't think you get that without serious testing and root cause analysis, and I know you don't get that often (if ever) if QA is a separate entity from development.

      Of course it's good to have embedded testers. But I don't think it has much to do with whether bugs get fixed properly or not.

      Whether that happens or not seems to me to be more a function of the mindset of the developer, whether he concentrates on fixing the symptom of the bug or fixing-the-hell-out-of-the-bug(tm) once it is found.

      /J

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://674997]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-12-27 09:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (176 votes), past polls