On Friday, August 10, 2012 1:41:30 PM UTC-7, Anthony Hughes wrote: > 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
I'm seeing a lot of good ideas and perspectives here. Thank you everyone who has commented so far. Keep it up. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
