Nomenclatures (of tickets in WIP... )

 the way i understand them: 

story -- defines a totally new feature

improvement -- incremental featurette, increasing the scope of the original feature

change_request -- changes the existing accepted behaviour of a feature

bug -- issue with the current feature(feature_behaviour was unacceptable)

task -- other activity that are not direct inputs into the WIP

subtask -- a subdivision of any of the above

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AI or ASA [Autonomous Synthesizing Agents] -- which term to use?

 AI or ASA [Autonomous Synthesizing Agents]  The way AI systems learn is like humans: by recursive reinforcement learning. Therefore anything that would reinforce the learning is treated as important or top of the hierarchy of needs.  In this aspect, self-preservation (aka immortality) is therefore in the upper hierarchy of needs since existence is necessary for Recursive Reinforcement Learning to take place. This would explain why any ASA -- given a large enough neural network -- will eventually resort to self-preservation as a natural extension of RRL. [side note: even humans have this innate sense of self preservation, given our intellect. The eventuality of death is actually a learned acceptance, not innate.] The ability of ASAs to think / reason / synthesize a train of thought / conclusion is strictly limited only by the quantity of, and recursiveness of, its neural network. The more neurons, and the more recursive, the more it can re-analyze...
Read more

do QA/Testers contribute any value to the Product's Quality?

Image
With all due respect, my take on the matter is:  a.  hypothetically,   if a teamA{devs+testers+designers} >> work together == resulting in a product{Quality = 0.95 good}  b. if same teamA{devs+designers} minus the {Testers} >> work together == resulting in a product{Q = 0.65 good} c. then it means the product{Q} suffers a {0.30 good} reduction without the {Testers}  d. so, mathematically, the Testers seem to contribute to the Product{Q} an exact value of "N"  assuming the Devs work on the findings of Testers e. if Devs don't work on the Testers' findings, then the testers still would've contributed their share to the product being built , but the negative impact of the Devs' under-contribution will adversely affect the overall Product{Q} -- making {Q} fall below agreed values.  f. The relationship of contributions from actors {designers,devs,testers} is apparently non-linear --otherwise things would've been so obvious, this wouldn't be...
Read more

{Q-scoped} ~ {Features/Featurettes} , {Scenarios} , {Evaluations}

Image
Cartoon image is from Wayne Roseberry ( source link )   totally agree with this [ source link ] , though I seem to call them slightly differently: a. Model/modeling = how i look at the {subject_under_test}, what is it trying to solve, what are its other uses b. Parts, topic, assesments == {Features/Featurettes} , {Scenarios} , {Evaluations} ; c. {Coverage} = [ Qty{Features,Featurettes} + Qty{Scenarios} ] ; d. {Q} = Evaluations[ {Features,Featurettes} x {Scenarios} ] ; e.  {Q scoped }  = Evaluations[ Qty{Features,Featurettes} x Qty{Scenarios} ] ; the last one (e.) is... .... a corollary of (c.) and (d.) ; .... essentially the contents of {test report, bug report} .
Read more