The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Thumper if my memory serves me well (which, to be honest, it almost never does)...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant Anonymous ----- The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine Winston Churchill, 1944 ----- I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. Me, all the time
So I'm a dev manager and our QC lead who is gaining proficiency in coding, though is by no means even a junior programmer has taken it upon himself to directly fix some easy bugs. This is certainly a faster way to get things fixed as our dev resources are severely limited. So far it's restricted to typos/grammar mistakes in hard-coded string UI messages and that type of thing. Good or bad? Thoughts?
The whole idea of having a separate QA dept is that the people involved in the development don't do the testing, because they don't know what to expect.
Who is going to test the QA output?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
I hope you don't have any quick fixes in the code that you haven't been allowed to fix properly because no-one will approve a change that doesn't add any visible value and which rely on those hard coded strings
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 19-Sep-17 14:59