Hi Max,
>> Do you know, how often a CWS returns back to development because of
>> broken functionality, not fixed issues or process violation?
>
> of course in regards to process violation, nothing would change. I am
> talking about e.g crashing issues. If the developer tried it and it does
> not crash anymore, QA should not have to test the scenario again and
> waste time on reproducing the issue again(and again when closing the issue)
Difficult to draw the line: Which issues need verification, which don't?
Also, having seen a lot of misunderstandings ("Oh! I though you meant
*this* button, but now I see you meant *that* one!"), I think it is a
good idea that somebody who did not fix the issue verifies it. And the
CWS is the the best place for this verification, I'd say.
Also, IMO good QA engineers tend to not only blindly verify the concrete
issue is fixed, but think about what they saw and did. Sometimes, this
leads to additional issues, or discussions whether the new behaviour is
really intended and Good (TM), and so on. At least this is my experience
with DBA's QA, and I would not like to miss that, since it finally also
improves the product.
Ciao
Frank
--
- Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer frank.schoenh...@sun.com -
- Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice -
- OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
