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

A specific elaboration of Test Phase-Space: A Rudimentary Mathematical Model of Testing Phenomenon in General

UNDER CONSTRUCTION Note1: the equations presented herein are rudimentary; further inputs / corrections / suggestions are welcome. Note2: although this article was written from the perspective of software testing, we believe this can be expanded to encompass all testing phenomena in general.   Summary:  this article tries to describe testing using a Confidence Scale, with the various stages interrelated through mathematical equations. As a prerequisite , we base on the following assumptions:   Assumption#1.   confidence/level/quality scale: from 1(low) to   10(perfect), effectively divided into three ranges: Low -c onfidence(1-3), Medium - confidence(4-6), High - confidence(7-9), 5 = median - confidence/level/quality 10 = " perfect -confidence"  which will be generally accepted as highly  unlikely  to be attainable . (To those familiar with the Kepner-Tregoe method of problem / decision analysis, this scale may sound familiar.)   Assumption#2....
Read more

Quality Assurance, Confidence Levels, and Testing

Image
I agree on the 'quality assurance' comment -- semantically and practically it is not a very useful term.  (a) semantically, any product will have an inherent level of Quality [0 <= Q <= 1] as soon as it is released in whichever environment. A level of Quality is already 'assured' as soon as the software product exits the compiler.  (b) practically, a 100% assurance of High Quality [a score of 1.00] is impossible, not even on a quantum level -- as soon as we observe something at that level, it changes the specifics of what we were trying to observe.   However, on the confidence/acceptance scale, it must be agreeable that Testing directly/indirectly ascertains the Confidence level perceived from using the SUT(Subject Under Test). This would be attested to by 'tested' cars, planes, and rockets -- and by extension, software products. These products are not perfect 100% Confidence Level ["C" score = 1.00] but empirically also not Confidence Level 0. T...
Read more