Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [XP] Re: Struggling with how to fit QA in

Expand Messages
  • Rob Park
    I guess I would suggest that if you _are_ finding significant issues either towards the end of an iteration (or worse after the iteration) that another
    Message 1 of 31 , Dec 2, 2005
      I guess I would suggest that if you _are_ finding significant issues either
      towards the end of an iteration (or worse after the iteration) that another
      possible solution is to slow down in order to be able to further test-infect
      the whole team and fix some of the issues at the root (or at least close the
      feedback loop).

      I suppose I'm implying that "release to QA" smells like a sloppiness issue
      to me. And I don't mean that as any sort of insult. It happens to all of
      us. I'm just suggesting that you identify and fix it rather than mess up
      the rhythm.

      .rob.


      >From: "MeadeR_NJ" <meader_nj@...>
      >Reply-To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      >To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [XP] Re: Struggling with how to fit QA in
      >Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:10:35 -0000
      >
      >In groups I managed I've always had a 'release to QA' - this is
      >especially important when the system is in some level of production
      >(people are actually using it). The 'release to QA' ensures that
      >there are no significant issues with the release. If there are issues
      >you need to decide to let them into production, skip the release,
      >correct prior to production or include in the n+1 release (or some
      >combination).
      >
    • Steven Gordon
      On the other hand, if you are in an organization where the real customer can only use a new feature in production after a long, tedious, bureaucratic
      Message 31 of 31 , Dec 5, 2005
        On the other hand, if you are in an organization where the real customer can
        only use a new feature in production after a long, tedious, bureaucratic
        deployment process, then the QA delay probably has no affect on value flow
        except in the last iteration of a release.

        In such a case, Kent's argument needs to be applied to the deployment
        process before being applied to the QA process. The argument for
        leaning/integrating the QA process then comes down to shortening feedback
        loops instead of value flows.

        Steven Gordon

        On 12/5/05, Kent Beck <kentb@...> wrote:
        >
        > Denis,
        >
        > I wonder if the programmers' perspectives would change if you worked
        > backwards from "real customer successfully uses new feature" instead of
        > forwards from "programmer writes line of code". I use a process called
        > value
        > stream mapping borrowed from lean manufacturing to visualize such
        > situations. What are all the activities that take time before the real
        > customer successfully uses a new features, and what are the points in the
        > process where the code is simply waiting? You can draw the current picture
        > and then draw a desired future picture. From the example below, I would
        > have
        > a box labelled "programmer writes code" followed by a wait of up to an
        > iteration followed by "tester tries code, reports defect" followed by some
        > wait time followed by "programmer fixes code" followed by more waiting
        > followed by "tester verifies fix" followed by a bunch more waiting (the
        > rest
        > of the release) followed by "real customer successfully uses new feature".
        > From there you can figure out for yourselves if that is the picture you
        > want
        > or if it would be more efficient to somehow bring the tester into the
        > iteration (for example, by writing story tests in advance). Maybe testing
        > N-1 is so much better than waiting and testing a whole release at once
        > that
        > the current situation is fine for everyone but you.
        >
        > Sincerely yours,
        >
        > Kent Beck
        > Three Rivers Institute
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.