Thorsten Ziehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That way a developer could get an _optional_ means at hand of doing > > regression tests, with no obligation to always run these tests. If > > the developer feels that he should run the tests, then he could do > > so and invest the (machine) time. If he thinks that the tests will > > be no additional help, he just does not run them. > > Of course the question then is how often such a regression > > happens. If we have to expect to have half a dozen P1 bugs each > > milestone due to the mass of regressions, then the "mandatory for > > every CWS" seems the better solution to me. But if we expect to have > > such a P1 bug from the automatic tests only once every 2 or 3 > > milestones (or hopefully even less often), then this seems an > > acceptable way to me. > > Does that make sense? > > No, from view of the QA team. Then they have to do the regressions tests > on the CWS as they do now. So we do not have any benefit from this solution. > Of course QA will benefit - less rework. There will be a smaller number of CWS that need to get back to development.
Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
