4 ms·

This is very close to how we develop at TripAdvisor, though we have a suite of tests that get run during a branch merge and code review (of at least one more en

by sanj 16y ago

This is very close to how we develop at TripAdvisor, though we have a suite of tests that get run during a branch merge and code review (of at least one more engineer) of anything going into the livesite code base. We also have very small QA team. They work to make sure that the buttons that make us money aren't screwed up. The key to this sort of uber-agile development is that you have very, very talented engineers, a release process flexible enough to deal with errors, and a management that buys into moving so fast that mistakes will happen. I have to say that it is simultaneously exhilarating, humbling and a little terrifying to work like this. Luckily, mostly the first two.

rhizome 16y ago
I know all of this certainly has worked and does work for you, but the first thing I thought about when reading "small QA team" and "the key...talented engineers" is that QA is not very important to the company. A QA team that only checks the money buttons tells me that traditional QA has been incorporated into the developer positions themselves, which creates a conflict of interest. Couching my conclusion in the topic of this post, it would seem that Facebook gives extraordinary freedom to developers, but also hangs everything around the developers neck. Screwing up in this area sounds pretty fatal, and not an aspect of a company I would want to work for. I'm kinda old, though.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  the first thing I thought about when reading "small QA team" and "the key...talented engineers" is that QA is not very important to the company Couldn't the other corollary of this be that the company/development team has invested heavily in automated testing?
timcederman 16y ago
Very small QA team...unless you count all the feature, cross-browser and multi-language testing done by the product management team. I'm still not sure having the product team responsible for hours and hours of black-box QA testing each week was an effective use of resources.

by sanj 16y ago

rhizome 16y ago

I know all of this certainly has worked and does work for you, but the first thing I thought about when reading "small QA team" and "the key...talented engineers" is that QA is not very important to the company. A QA team that only checks the money buttons tells me that traditional QA has been incorporated into the developer positions themselves, which creates a conflict of interest. Couching my conclusion in the topic of this post, it would seem that Facebook gives extraordinary freedom to developers, but also hangs everything around the developers neck. Screwing up in this area sounds pretty fatal, and not an aspect of a company I would want to work for. I'm kinda old, though.

brown9-2 16y ago
the first thing I thought about when reading "small QA team" and "the key...talented engineers" is that QA is not very important to the company Couldn't the other corollary of this be that the company/development team has invested heavily in automated testing?

timcederman 16y ago

Very small QA team...unless you count all the feature, cross-browser and multi-language testing done by the product management team. I'm still not sure having the product team responsible for hours and hours of black-box QA testing each week was an effective use of resources.