On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Ian Walls <[email protected]> wrote:
> To me, the role of QA is to be highly conservative. The QA team needs to > look at a piece of incoming code, and not only judge it on how well it does > it's intended purpose, but how it affects all the other code and workflows > that surround it. The folks creating and signing off on code are often > looking to answer the question "does it work?". I approach the QA process > asking the question "what does it break?". > > Often times, the answer is "nothing", and we get a great new feature in > our codebase. But sometimes the patch changes a core function or variable > declaration in a way that isn't spotted, and only applicable on certain use > cases. Or a new dependency is added that conflicts with something > existing. Or a security hole is introduced under some conditions. A > person asking "does this work?" isn't necessarily going to spot these > things in their testing; our code is very complex. I'm sure we can all > recall cases where piece of code was committed to do one thing, and then > required a followup because it broke something else under specific > circumstances. > > I strongly believe that having a 'neutral party' to do the QA work is > essential to keeping our codebase strong and healthy. We need the fresh > set of eyes, the different perspective, the alternate use case. We need > someone asking "what does it break?", and I don't think the folks who've > been asking the question "does it work?" are the best suited to that task. > +1 Kind Regards, Chris
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
