Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Mathias, > > So, while broadly agreeing with most of what you say: > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 08:53 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: >> Without the spec the QA wouldn't be able to even find bugs in >> many cases (with the exception of obvious ones). > > We hear this a lot. And, now we know that specifications are frequently > inaccurate, buggy / out of sync with the code anyway. So - I'm having > problems understanding what -exactly- QA need here. It'd help to have 10 > representative examples of times when a specification has actually > helped distinguish between bugs & features, and what was done with that > information [ writing tests / whatever ]. Well, did I say our specs are perfect? Of course developers make errors and so do spec writers. But should we give up writing specs because of this? Should we stop coding also because our code contains bugs? My understanding is that our goal is to improve over time and serve the goals we attach to our activities better. And as Frank stated we already learned something from our old specs and this is reflected in the new spec template. And it is much more "light weight".
> Perhaps with some good examples to analyse here, it'd be easier to > understand some of the rational. Fair enough. I will forward your request to our QA (in case they stopped reading here). OTOH we already know some examples where the absence of a spec definitely caused problems (one of them started this thread). Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
