On 30 May 2012 12:30, Chris Nighswonger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > +1 from me also
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/
