Hi Michael,
I agree on many points:
Michael Meeks wrote:
[..]
* Proposed new process
Sorry, didn't find something new :-(
[..]
+ New spec. process:
+ 'Wiki' based solution (for those that want it)
This has been already accepted.
+ minimal data required for good QA
The main rules of our current spec. template are
"complete, unambiguous and simple" or in other words:
Not more and not less than needed for good QA.
+ expectation that on 'Ready for QA' event spec.
will not be perfect.
+ dialog is expected between QA & Devel resulting
in an improved spec. [ and implementation ]
The state of a spec. is "preliminary", it should enable QA to check the
CWS against the spec. but it does not need to be "perfect" when the CWS
is "Ready for QA".
+ expectation that by 'Approved by QA' event spec.
will have all known issues fixed.
That is exactly the idea behind our spec. process. If QA finds
differences between implementation and spec, these have to be resolved
by fixing the code or the spec. At the end of the day the spec and the
implementation fit together and the CWS will be "approved by QA".
Okay, the Wiki agreement is only a few days old, but the rest has been
presented at Lyon already.
You are describing our current spec. process, so welcome on board!
Regards
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
