10 messages in com.perforce.perforce-user[p4] Which dept for build/release eng...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| DAO, THOMAS (SBCSI) | 14 Jun 2004 13:55 | |
| Hoff, Todd | 15 Jun 2004 08:19 | |
| Ivey, William | 15 Jun 2004 09:16 | |
| Janulewicz, Matthew | 15 Jun 2004 10:01 | |
| jab | 15 Jun 2004 10:23 | |
| Hoff, Todd | 15 Jun 2004 10:27 | |
| Janulewicz, Matthew | 15 Jun 2004 10:37 | |
| Ivey, William | 15 Jun 2004 11:56 | |
| Janulewicz, Matthew | 15 Jun 2004 12:59 | |
| Ivey, William | 16 Jun 2004 10:37 |
| Subject: | [p4] Which dept for build/release engineers? |
|---|---|
| From: | Ivey, William (will...@bmc.com) |
| Date: | 06/15/2004 11:56:21 AM |
| List: | com.perforce.perforce-user |
-----Original Message----- From: Janulewicz, Matthew [mailto:mjanulew at alarismed.com]
It's probably just my personality and the fact that I've been burned by this kind of thing in the past. It does have to do with process enforcement, authority, etc., but I've been victimized countless times by testers that want a certain fix in a build for whatever reason, one that is not a requirement and not part of the design, and the engineer provides it to them. It promptly breaks everything.
That's a failure in the process and has nothing to do with the proximity of the testers. The same thing happens when the testers are on a separate floor if they and the engineers decide to ignore the system.
In my case, "our" testers always submitted change requests for review (with the exception of the occasional stupid mistake - such as giving them the wrong media).
And no one said every team member has to be part of the same department. In fact, these weren't, they were attached to our team for the project. (And their career advancement was based on how bug-free the product was when it went to final QA, so they had every incentive to get it right and cover their rears with paperwork.)
-Wm