4 ms·

That sounds…inefficient. Push code, ping QA, they test find issues, ping you, you fix, ping QA…

• scotty79 5y ago
  Yup, super efficient if that's priority issue to resolve. In this type of 1 on 1 session with a customer, who was acting as a QA I managed to resolve more than 10 issues on the fly within an hour. We had multiple sessions like that and they were very productive. Some issues couldn't be fixed "while you wait" of course and had to be postponed and checked and fine tuned on next session.
  • pcmoney 5y ago
    Those must have been very trivial bugs with very cursory manual QA. No complex side effects or interdependencies. Could have done it in 30 then with TDD.
    • scotty79 5y ago
      Not really. Writing test for them. being trivial and all, would take many times more time than fixing them. Those bugs had limited impact so the QA could manually test all the reasonable places of impact after my fix, while I was fixing the next one. It was really great feeling of interaction and collaboration. I felt like a proper wizard and I knew that after this sessions all the things we fixed are good. This is completely incomparable to TDD, where you just sit in your own muck and shovel it back and forth with very little interaction with outside reality ending up with ton of code that does nothing because it just makes tests that will never fail or they fail all at once because they will fail only if something very major breaks.
      • pcmoney 5y ago
        To be clear, I have done it both ways with a QA team and pure XP style TDD. Both projects were successful, the money is in the bank. Both projects had good steady velocity for years and AFAIK are still printing $10-100M/year. Maybe I just had bad testers but I know with the good developers I don’t need any testers.