Sorry, this should have went to dev-platform... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Hughes" <ahug...@mozilla.com> To: "dev-planning" <dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org> Cc: dev-qual...@lists.mozilla.org Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:40:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Verification Culture
I started this discussion on dev-quality[1] but there has been some suggestion that the dev-planning list is more appropriate so I'm moving the discussion here. There's been a couple of great responses to the dev-quality thread so far but I won't repost them here verbatim. The general concensus in the feedback was that QA spending a lot of time simply verifying that the immediate test conditions (or test case) is not a valuable practice. It was suggested that it would be a far more valuable use of QA's time and be of greater benefit to the quality of our product if we pulled out a subset of "critical" issues and ran deep-diving sprints around those issues to touch on edge-cases. I, for one, support this idea in the hypothetical form. I'd like to get various peoples' perspectives on this issue (not just QA). Thank you do David Baron, Ehsan Akhgari, Jason Smith, and Boris Zbarsky for the feedback that was the catalyst for me starting this discussion. For reference, it might help to have a look at my dev-planning post[2] which spawned the dev-quality post, which in turn has spawned the post you are now reading. Anthony Hughes Mozilla Quality Engineer 1. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.quality/zpK52mDE2Jg 2. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/15TSrCbakEc ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Anthony Hughes" <ahug...@mozilla.com> To: dev-qual...@lists.mozilla.org Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2012 5:14:02 PM Subject: Verification Culture Today, David Baron brought to my attention an old bugzilla comment[1] about whether or not putting as much emphasis on bug fix verification was a useful practice or not. Having read the comment for the first time, it really got me wondering whether our cultural desire to verify so many bug fixes before releasing Firefox to the public was a prudent one. Does verifying as many fixes as we do really raise the quality bar for Firefox? Could the time we spend be better used elsewhere? If I were to ballpark it, I'd guess that nearly half of the testing we do during Beta is for bug fix verifications. Now sure, we'll always want to have some level of verification (making sure security fixes and critical regressions are *truly* fixed is important); But maybe, just maybe, we're being a little too purist in our approach. What do you think? Anthony Hughes Quality Engineer Mozilla Corporation 1. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172191#c16 _______________________________________________ dev-quality mailing list dev-qual...@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
