4 ms·

nope, otherwise said senior management will be no longer needed. These people need to create a veil of importance. They will create multi-level approval proces

nope, otherwise said senior management will be no longer needed. These people need to create a veil of importance. They will create multi-level approval process. they will add QA team in India and customer signoff. When something happens blame is still on developers.

sidlls 9y ago
If customers are involved maybe their signoff is necessary (not technically, but contractually). QA seems like an important, necessary step in any delivery process, "continuous" or not: tests aren't infallible and a combination of complementary automated and manual tests aren't a bad thing necessarily. I find often when developers think something that is process driven like this isn't necessary it's because they're not thinking outside their own direct and immediate concerns.
- Chyzwar 9y ago
  QA is only needed for acceptance testing and should be automated. Not a tens of people doing checklist testing. The customer should sign off on during requirements gathering phase and on frequent demos, not before release. I often think that management was transplanted into the foreign ground of software development and have no clue. They will then come with platinum quarterly releases were testing cost more than development.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Automated testing is great, but there is something to be said for the value of having real eyes on the product. Often times front ends can pass all the tests, but a good QA person suddenly realizes, wait a second, do we really want it to work this way?
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  I've been experimenting with auto-generating documentation (with screenshots) from tests as a means of getting quicker and more trusting customer sign off. The way I see it this is a communication feedback loop much like the one between tester and developer or product manager and developer and leaving that gap open means you're one step further away continuous delivery. I don't think it's unreasonable for customers to be somewhat distrustful of us, their black box that spits out code.

sidlls 9y ago

If customers are involved maybe their signoff is necessary (not technically, but contractually). QA seems like an important, necessary step in any delivery process, "continuous" or not: tests aren't infallible and a combination of complementary automated and manual tests aren't a bad thing necessarily. I find often when developers think something that is process driven like this isn't necessary it's because they're not thinking outside their own direct and immediate concerns.

Chyzwar 9y ago
QA is only needed for acceptance testing and should be automated. Not a tens of people doing checklist testing. The customer should sign off on during requirements gathering phase and on frequent demos, not before release. I often think that management was transplanted into the foreign ground of software development and have no clue. They will then come with platinum quarterly releases were testing cost more than development.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Automated testing is great, but there is something to be said for the value of having real eyes on the product. Often times front ends can pass all the tests, but a good QA person suddenly realizes, wait a second, do we really want it to work this way?
crdoconnor 9y ago
I've been experimenting with auto-generating documentation (with screenshots) from tests as a means of getting quicker and more trusting customer sign off. The way I see it this is a communication feedback loop much like the one between tester and developer or product manager and developer and leaving that gap open means you're one step further away continuous delivery. I don't think it's unreasonable for customers to be somewhat distrustful of us, their black box that spits out code.