17 ms·
I work at a startup so we have a small team. But for us it goes: 1. Develop some feature (me and the other engineer are full stack) 2. Send to other engineer
by edgyquant 5y ago
I work at a startup so we have a small team. But for us it goes:
1. Develop some feature (me and the other engineer are full stack)
2. Send to other engineer for code review
3. Deploy to a staging site, with test data. Send to product girl to QA
If she finds a bug (or realizes her design doesn’t look as right in practice as she envisioned) she sends back with notes, we implement or fix them, and then start back at 1-2.
I think QA is different for every org but I believe there should be steps. At bigger orgs there should be QA for every feature developed (so each team should have a QA person) and then an integration QA of the current beta.
- failwhaleshark 5y agoQA is different for every type of engineering organization. It shouldn't be automatically thrown around or diffused as something tertiary that can be subordinate wherever it lands. That works in a 3 person startup, but not if you're building an aircraft carrier or an iPhone.
- edgyquant 5y agoI agree that was kind of my point. It’s different everywhere so saying it only should exist to test stable is untrue.