Thierry,

On 2/28/13 7:18 PM, thierry henrio wrote:
> Hello George
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM, George Dinwiddie
> <lists@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Ryan,
>>
>> I don't have much to add to your excellent list, below. I did happen
>> across "Feature Branches vs Feature Toggles"
>> (http://geekswithblogs.net/Optikal/archive/2013/02/10/152069.aspx)
>> recently and you might find some more tidbits in it.
>>
> Good pointer indeed, and  a question
>
> Why is there a "candidate branch" ?

It's not my article, so I can't answer for the author. I suspect that's
to "freeze the code" for release while others continue to develop
unimpeded. With git that's an easy thing to do.

A decade ago I would tag the head in SVN for a release candidate. If a
problem showed up with that build (very rare) then I would fix it and
repeat with the current head. I didn't use branches.

>
> Why not master ?
> Because it's easier to undo or because of different policies ( candidate
> can fail ) ?
>
> A very simple workflow is indeed "short lived" : pick something small,
> branch from master, commit as often, merge to master with some squash if
> required, push
>
> What does matter finally is how we are comfortable with our history ?,
> Thierry

   - George

--
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
    Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
    Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've forgotten ~87% of what I used to know about using cards to stay focused
without losing track of the important trails that we discover along the way.

What are your favorite practices in this vicinity?

I remember hearing/saying things like, "good idea, but it's not on the card,"
"card that," "do you think these cards are small enough that we can finish them
in one session?" and, "we didn't accomplish much of what we set out to do. Why
not?"

How do you size/scope your per-session cards?

How do you balance ones that feed into customer stories vs. addressing code and
process smells? Does your answer to this change if you're on a project backed up
with technical debt such as missing tests, broken windows, poorly factored code,
or funky bugs?

How do you carry cards over from previous days' discoveries?

Who owns the responsibility for championing a card before it finds itself on the
Giant Pile of TODOs We Won't Do? Is it both members of the pair that find it? Is
it one team member? I'd it the whole team, and I'd do do you make this part of
the stand-up meeting's announcements?

Do you present it to the Customer to rank against prefer uses of your time?

What do you do when the rate of new work clearly outpaces the rate of
accomplishments?

Halp! (And thanks.)
-RK



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So Alastair Cockburn <http://alistair.cockburn.us/> came by this furthest
corner of the planet and gave refreshing breeze of good sense....

But one thing he mentioned, but nobody picked up on, and I had already
overused my quota of questions....

He said that some places are working with "sticky notes on the back of the
door" issue tracking systems.

ie. They have so few issues that they can track them in this very low tech
manner.

I can of course imagine several routes to such a state....

a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and developers
create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.

b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that you
balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
queues)

c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when the
sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug before,
but threw it away).

d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak testers
that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.

Anybody have any experience of what Alastair was talking about?



--
John Carter                             Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics                        Fax   : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch                Email : john.carter@...
New Zealand

--

------------------------------
This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended recipient.
It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal
or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this
transmission.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate,
distribute or reproduce such email, any attachments, or any part thereof.
If you have received a message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments.
Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or
corrupted during transmission nor can we guarantee that any email or any
attachments are free from computer viruses or other conditions which may
damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The
recipient relies upon its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and of
opening any attachments.
------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've worked with XP teams where every issue reported became a story or a
part of a story. We didn't have a bug tracker.

Problems found when a story was initially believed to be finished either
meant the story wasn't finished or that a new story had to be written.
Problems found later became a (possibly high priority) story.

I'm pretty sure that working without a bug-tracker requires having everyone
in one place, which is how I've seen it done.

Charlie


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:47 PM, John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> So Alastair Cockburn <http://alistair.cockburn.us/> came by this furthest
> corner of the planet and gave refreshing breeze of good sense....
>
> But one thing he mentioned, but nobody picked up on, and I had already
> overused my quota of questions....
>
> He said that some places are working with "sticky notes on the back of the
> door" issue tracking systems.
>
> ie. They have so few issues that they can track them in this very low tech
> manner.
>
> I can of course imagine several routes to such a state....
>
> a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and developers
> create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.
>
> b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that you
> balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
> until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
> queues)
>
> c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when the
> sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
> important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug before,
> but threw it away).
>
> d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak testers
> that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.
>
> Anybody have any experience of what Alastair was talking about?
>
> --
> John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
> Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
> PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@...
> New Zealand
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------
> This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended recipient.
> It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of
> legal
> or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this
> transmission.
> If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate,
> distribute or reproduce such email, any attachments, or any part thereof.
> If you have received a message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments.
> Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or
> corrupted during transmission nor can we guarantee that any email or any
> attachments are free from computer viruses or other conditions which may
> damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The
> recipient relies upon its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and
> of
> opening any attachments.
> ------------------------------
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I can't speak for Alastair as to what he meant - but there are at
least a few more options:

i) There are little to no issues being tracked since they are fixed on
discovery. They don't hang around because they are treated as
stop-the-line problems that need immediate attention.

ii) There's a sharp line between issues that are "we released
something that doesn't work as we intended it to work" and everything
else. Only the former are "bugs" - everything else gets pushed into
the normal backlog and prioritised accordingly.

ii) There is no separate bug queue - everything is in a single backlog
and prioritised accordingly.

iv) There are little or no issues being tracked since the testers and
the QA folk work with the rest of the team throughout the development
process so that bugs get caught and fixed during development, rather
than afterwards.

In my experience teams with the low bug counts have some of more of
the above, along with your (a) where "Magic Happens" == a great
poly-skilled team that includes testers, product managers and business
input in combination with a stack of good development practices
applied well.

Cheers,

Adrian

On 13 March 2013 03:47, John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:
> So Alastair Cockburn <http://alistair.cockburn.us/> came by this furthest
> corner of the planet and gave refreshing breeze of good sense....
>
> But one thing he mentioned, but nobody picked up on, and I had already
> overused my quota of questions....
>
> He said that some places are working with "sticky notes on the back of the
> door" issue tracking systems.
>
> ie. They have so few issues that they can track them in this very low tech
> manner.
>
> I can of course imagine several routes to such a state....
>
> a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and developers
> create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.
>
> b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that you
> balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
> until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
> queues)
>
> c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when the
> sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
> important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug before,
> but threw it away).
>
> d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak testers
> that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.
>
> Anybody have any experience of what Alastair was talking about?
--
http://quietstars.com     adrianh@...     twitter.com/adrianh
t. +44 (0)7752 419080     skype adrianjohnhoward     pinboard.in/u:adrianh

John,

I've seen a team of ordinary programmers reach the state of frequently
shipping zero bugs (even measured after deployment), and quickly taking
care of the ones that escaped an iteration. It's not magic.

   - George

On 3/12/13 11:47 PM, John Carter wrote:
> So Alastair Cockburn <http://alistair.cockburn.us/> came by this furthest
> corner of the planet and gave refreshing breeze of good sense....
>
> But one thing he mentioned, but nobody picked up on, and I had already
> overused my quota of questions....
>
> He said that some places are working with "sticky notes on the back of the
> door" issue tracking systems.
>
> ie. They have so few issues that they can track them in this very low tech
> manner.
>
> I can of course imagine several routes to such a state....
>
> a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and developers
> create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.
>
> b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that you
> balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
> until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
> queues)
>
> c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when the
> sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
> important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug before,
> but threw it away).
>
> d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak testers
> that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.
>
> Anybody have any experience of what Alastair was talking about?
>
>
>

--
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
    Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
    Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, George Dinwiddie
<lists@...>wrote:

> I've seen a team of ordinary programmers reach the state of frequently
> shipping zero bugs (even measured after deployment), and quickly taking
> care of the ones that escaped an iteration. It's not magic.
>

This is the Very Interesting Answer which I would like to bring home to the
rest of the company....

My colleagues are quite comfortable with the "lean manufacturing" no queues
answer, but plain flat out don't believe the "No Defect Magic" answer.

So I'm looking for data / evidence / stories / books / papers to convince
them that we could do better.


--
John Carter                             Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics                        Fax   : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch                Email : john.carter@...
New Zealand

--

------------------------------
This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended recipient.
It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal
or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this
transmission.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate,
distribute or reproduce such email, any attachments, or any part thereof.
If you have received a message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments.
Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or
corrupted during transmission nor can we guarantee that any email or any
attachments are free from computer viruses or other conditions which may
damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The
recipient relies upon its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and of
opening any attachments.
------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,

On 3/13/13 12:42 AM, John Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, George Dinwiddie
> <lists@...>wrote:
>
>> I've seen a team of ordinary programmers reach the state of frequently
>> shipping zero bugs (even measured after deployment), and quickly taking
>> care of the ones that escaped an iteration. It's not magic.
>>
>
> This is the Very Interesting Answer which I would like to bring home to the
> rest of the company....
>
> My colleagues are quite comfortable with the "lean manufacturing" no queues
> answer, but plain flat out don't believe the "No Defect Magic" answer.
>
> So I'm looking for data / evidence / stories / books / papers to convince
> them that we could do better.

Do you think that will convince them?

It didn't even convince the organization around them. The comment on
their first release, when 92% of the release test scripts passed on the
first attempt, was "they cheated; they tested ahead of time." I think it
was the second or third release when they hit 100%.

Yes, they tested, not always automated. They also had a sign on the wall
that said "Zero bugs, the new normal."

   - George

--
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
    Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
    Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi George,

Maybe we should just say "Yes, we cheated. And we figured out a way to keep
cheating, so that tests keep passing. Do you want us to stop?"

Charlie


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:52 PM, George Dinwiddie
<lists@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> John,
>
> On 3/13/13 12:42 AM, John Carter wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, George Dinwiddie
> > <lists@...>wrote:
> >
> >> I've seen a team of ordinary programmers reach the state of frequently
> >> shipping zero bugs (even measured after deployment), and quickly taking
> >> care of the ones that escaped an iteration. It's not magic.
> >>
> >
> > This is the Very Interesting Answer which I would like to bring home to
> the
> > rest of the company....
> >
> > My colleagues are quite comfortable with the "lean manufacturing" no
> queues
> > answer, but plain flat out don't believe the "No Defect Magic" answer.
> >
> > So I'm looking for data / evidence / stories / books / papers to convince
> > them that we could do better.
>
> Do you think that will convince them?
>
> It didn't even convince the organization around them. The comment on
> their first release, when 92% of the release test scripts passed on the
> first attempt, was "they cheated; they tested ahead of time." I think it
> was the second or third release when they hit 100%.
>
> Yes, they tested, not always automated. They also had a sign on the wall
> that said "Zero bugs, the new normal."
>
> - George
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
> Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
> Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello, John,

On Mar 12, 2013, at 11:47 PM, John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:

> a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and developers
> create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.
>
> b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that you
> balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
> until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
> queues)
>
> c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when the
> sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
> important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug before,
> but threw it away).
>
> d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak testers
> that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised to see you asking this question.

Alistair's point is that good teams don't have very many defects. Frankly I
don't see why they'd need a whole bloody door.

The correct option is (a), but it's not done with magic, it's done by being
****ing competent. Let's face it, if developers are creating defects, they are
to that extent incompetent.

The notion included in (b) seems to think that only testers can find defects and
only "defect fixers" can fix them. XP and all Agile methods are about
cross-functional teams. The team tests, the team finds defects, the team fixes
them.

How do they do that?

Add testing skill to the development team. One way to do this is to merge the
existing testers right in. Clearly the team needs all the necessary skills to
develop each feature, yes? Well, if the features are shipping with defects, then
clearly the team needs more testing.
Use Acceptance Test-Driven Development. Each feature's description includes
defined and preferably automated tests (checks) of examples of that feature's
correct operation. Developers, not being stupid, do not pass code on until it
passes all these tests. See the "Three C's" notion. These are "Customer Tests".
Analyze every defect. When defects arise, figure out how each one occurred.
Since you are doing Acceptance Test-Driven Development, it is evident that there
is at least one missing test. Write that check, plus all the others that occur
to you in light of the missing one. Beef up your overall approach to ATDD,
improving how you define new tests. Retrofit old tests as indicated.
Use Test-Driven Development. Developers write no line of code until they have a
failing test asking for that very line of code. These are "Programmer Tests",
sometimes called unit tests. As in step 3 above, when defects show up, they also
indicate that TDD tests are missing. Write those, learn from it.

"Won't that take forever, all that testing? We'll never get done!"

You'll never get done now! Your god-blessed bug database is filling up and your
thrice-blessed programmers are piling more dead code on top of the existing dead
code. When were you planning to fix all these bugs, in Fixtober, Bugvember, and
Defectcember? I'm sorry, those months were cancelled. Better fix them now.

It takes less time to prevent a defect than to fix it. So invest the time to
write the tests before you code, and don't stop coding until the tests work.
Voila, bug production drops by an order of magnitude, even if you completely
suck at writing tests. If you get good at it, and with all that practice you
will get good at it, and it'll drop by another order of magnitude.

In short, XP.

This topic, and the answer, has been around a long time. A few articles relating
to this subject:

http://xprogramming.com/articles/which-end-of-the-horse/
http://xprogramming.com/articles/expcardconversationconfirmation/
http://xprogramming.com/articles/where-can-we-reduce-quality/
http://xprogramming.com/blog/discovering-essential-technical-practices/
http://xprogramming.com/articles/manual-testing-does-exist-and-it-is-bad/
http://xprogramming.com/articles/kate-oneal-handling-defects/

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor -- Anne Lamott



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Charlie,

On 3/13/13 1:57 AM, Charlie Poole wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> Maybe we should just say "Yes, we cheated. And we figured out a way to keep
> cheating, so that tests keep passing. Do you want us to stop?"

Yes, it was amazing to me that anyone would want to treat software
release like a pop test.

   - George

--
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
    Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
    Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

I had the same experience, and it actually got me laid off.  Our team was
consistently producing zero bugs, or if something did escape, it was so small
and taken care of so quickly that it didn’t register in some system.  Our
customers were delighted, but our organization felt that we weren’t devoting
enough time to fixing bugs, thus we were doing something wrong.



When the layoffs came, I was on the block since I clearly wasn't managing the
team effectively anyway.  I guess since I wasn’t really “managing” the
team but supporting it, they were right.



Steve



Sent from Windows Mail


From: George Dinwiddie
Sent: ‎March‎ ‎12‎, ‎2013 ‎10‎:‎52‎ ‎PM
To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [XP] Back of the Door Sticky Note Issue Tracking.






John,

On 3/13/13 12:42 AM, John Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, George Dinwiddie
> <lists@...>wrote:
>
>> I've seen a team of ordinary programmers reach the state of frequently
>> shipping zero bugs (even measured after deployment), and quickly taking
>> care of the ones that escaped an iteration. It's not magic.
>>
>
> This is the Very Interesting Answer which I would like to bring home to the
> rest of the company....
>
> My colleagues are quite comfortable with the "lean manufacturing" no queues
> answer, but plain flat out don't believe the "No Defect Magic" answer.
>
> So I'm looking for data / evidence / stories / books / papers to convince
> them that we could do better.

Do you think that will convince them?

It didn't even convince the organization around them. The comment on
their first release, when 92% of the release test scripts passed on the
first attempt, was "they cheated; they tested ahead of time." I think it
was the second or third release when they hit 100%.

Yes, they tested, not always automated. They also had a sign on the wall
that said "Zero bugs, the new normal."

- George

--
----------------------------------------------------------
* George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
----------------------------------------------------------





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Steve,

On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:19 AM, <steveropa@...> wrote:

> I had the same experience, and it actually got me laid off. Our team was
consistently producing zero bugs, or if something did escape, it was so small
and taken care of so quickly that it didn’t register in some system. Our
customers were delighted, but our organization felt that we weren’t devoting
enough time to fixing bugs, thus we were doing something wrong.
>
> When the layoffs came, I was on the block since I clearly wasn't managing the
team effectively anyway. I guess since I wasn’t really “managing” the team but
supporting it, they were right.


This sounds like a communication problem to me ... was it?

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
If another does not intend offense, it is wrong for me to seek it;
if another does indeed intend offense, it is foolish for me to permit it.
   -- Kelly Easterley



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:19 AM, <steveropa@...> wrote:
>
> > I had the same experience, and it actually got me laid off. Our team was
> consistently producing zero bugs, or if something did escape, it was so
> small and taken care of so quickly that it didn’t register in some system.
> Our customers were delighted, but our organization felt that we weren’t
> devoting enough time to fixing bugs, thus we were doing something wrong.
> >
> > When the layoffs came, I was on the block since I clearly wasn't
> managing the team effectively anyway. I guess since I wasn’t really
> “managing” the team but supporting it, they were right.
>
>
> This sounds like a communication problem to me ... was it?
>

Or his organization was so dysfunctional he really won the layoff lottery.
--
--------------------------------------
Curtis Cooley
curtis@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ron Jeffries wrote:
> This sounds like a communication problem to me ... was it?

Hi,

... as if there were other kinds of problems. ;-)

Hi Michal,

On Mar 13, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Michal Svoboda <pht@...> wrote:

> ... as if there were other kinds of problems. ;-)


Oh, there are. Like if the team doesn't know how to write code that works, and
tests that demonstrate that fact.

Of course one could argue that someone needs to communicate to them how to do
that … but surely no one here would try that quibble. :)

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
If another does not intend offense, it is wrong for me to seek it;
if another does indeed intend offense, it is foolish for me to permit it.
   -- Kelly Easterley



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm not sure who said it first (it wasn't me), but I like the quote:
"If you have a process that is producing defects, then you have a defective
process."

Steve



On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hello, John,
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 11:47 PM, John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:
>
> > a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and developers
> > create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.
> >
> > b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that
> you
> > balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
> > until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
> > queues)
> >
> > c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when the
> > sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
> > important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug before,
> > but threw it away).
> >
> > d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak testers
> > that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.
>
> I have to say that I'm a bit surprised to see you asking this question.
>
> Alistair's point is that good teams don't have very many defects. Frankly
> I don't see why they'd need a whole bloody door.
>
> The correct option is (a), but it's not done with magic, it's done by
> being ****ing competent. Let's face it, if developers are creating defects,
> they are to that extent incompetent.
>
> The notion included in (b) seems to think that only testers can find
> defects and only "defect fixers" can fix them. XP and all Agile methods are
> about cross-functional teams. The team tests, the team finds defects, the
> team fixes them.
>
> How do they do that?
>
> Add testing skill to the development team. One way to do this is to merge
> the existing testers right in. Clearly the team needs all the necessary
> skills to develop each feature, yes? Well, if the features are shipping
> with defects, then clearly the team needs more testing.
> Use Acceptance Test-Driven Development. Each feature's description
> includes defined and preferably automated tests (checks) of examples of
> that feature's correct operation. Developers, not being stupid, do not pass
> code on until it passes all these tests. See the "Three C's" notion. These
> are "Customer Tests".
> Analyze every defect. When defects arise, figure out how each one
> occurred. Since you are doing Acceptance Test-Driven Development, it is
> evident that there is at least one missing test. Write that check, plus all
> the others that occur to you in light of the missing one. Beef up your
> overall approach to ATDD, improving how you define new tests. Retrofit old
> tests as indicated.
> Use Test-Driven Development. Developers write no line of code until they
> have a failing test asking for that very line of code. These are
> "Programmer Tests", sometimes called unit tests. As in step 3 above, when
> defects show up, they also indicate that TDD tests are missing. Write
> those, learn from it.
>
> "Won't that take forever, all that testing? We'll never get done!"
>
> You'll never get done now! Your god-blessed bug database is filling up and
> your thrice-blessed programmers are piling more dead code on top of the
> existing dead code. When were you planning to fix all these bugs, in
> Fixtober, Bugvember, and Defectcember? I'm sorry, those months were
> cancelled. Better fix them now.
>
> It takes less time to prevent a defect than to fix it. So invest the time
> to write the tests before you code, and don't stop coding until the tests
> work. Voila, bug production drops by an order of magnitude, even if you
> completely suck at writing tests. If you get good at it, and with all that
> practice you will get good at it, and it'll drop by another order of
> magnitude.
>
> In short, XP.
>
> This topic, and the answer, has been around a long time. A few articles
> relating to this subject:
>
> http://xprogramming.com/articles/which-end-of-the-horse/
> http://xprogramming.com/articles/expcardconversationconfirmation/
> http://xprogramming.com/articles/where-can-we-reduce-quality/
> http://xprogramming.com/blog/discovering-essential-technical-practices/
> http://xprogramming.com/articles/manual-testing-does-exist-and-it-is-bad/
> http://xprogramming.com/articles/kate-oneal-handling-defects/
>
> Ron Jeffries
> www.XProgramming.com
> Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor -- Anne Lamott
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Steve Smith
http://Ardalis.com/
http://twitter.com/ardalis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Can I quote you on that ? (Twitter)

C. Keith Ray
http://agilesolutionspace.blogspot.com/
twitter: @ckeithray


On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Steve Smith <ssmith.lists@...> wrote:

> I'm not sure who said it first (it wasn't me), but I like the quote:
> "If you have a process that is producing defects, then you have a defective
> process."
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hello, John,
>>
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2013, at 11:47 PM, John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:
>>
>>> a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and developers
>>> create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.
>>>
>>> b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that
>> you
>>> balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
>>> until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
>>> queues)
>>>
>>> c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when the
>>> sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
>>> important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug before,
>>> but threw it away).
>>>
>>> d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak testers
>>> that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.
>>
>> I have to say that I'm a bit surprised to see you asking this question.
>>
>> Alistair's point is that good teams don't have very many defects. Frankly
>> I don't see why they'd need a whole bloody door.
>>
>> The correct option is (a), but it's not done with magic, it's done by
>> being ****ing competent. Let's face it, if developers are creating defects,
>> they are to that extent incompetent.
>>
>> The notion included in (b) seems to think that only testers can find
>> defects and only "defect fixers" can fix them. XP and all Agile methods are
>> about cross-functional teams. The team tests, the team finds defects, the
>> team fixes them.
>>
>> How do they do that?
>>
>> Add testing skill to the development team. One way to do this is to merge
>> the existing testers right in. Clearly the team needs all the necessary
>> skills to develop each feature, yes? Well, if the features are shipping
>> with defects, then clearly the team needs more testing.
>> Use Acceptance Test-Driven Development. Each feature's description
>> includes defined and preferably automated tests (checks) of examples of
>> that feature's correct operation. Developers, not being stupid, do not pass
>> code on until it passes all these tests. See the "Three C's" notion. These
>> are "Customer Tests".
>> Analyze every defect. When defects arise, figure out how each one
>> occurred. Since you are doing Acceptance Test-Driven Development, it is
>> evident that there is at least one missing test. Write that check, plus all
>> the others that occur to you in light of the missing one. Beef up your
>> overall approach to ATDD, improving how you define new tests. Retrofit old
>> tests as indicated.
>> Use Test-Driven Development. Developers write no line of code until they
>> have a failing test asking for that very line of code. These are
>> "Programmer Tests", sometimes called unit tests. As in step 3 above, when
>> defects show up, they also indicate that TDD tests are missing. Write
>> those, learn from it.
>>
>> "Won't that take forever, all that testing? We'll never get done!"
>>
>> You'll never get done now! Your god-blessed bug database is filling up and
>> your thrice-blessed programmers are piling more dead code on top of the
>> existing dead code. When were you planning to fix all these bugs, in
>> Fixtober, Bugvember, and Defectcember? I'm sorry, those months were
>> cancelled. Better fix them now.
>>
>> It takes less time to prevent a defect than to fix it. So invest the time
>> to write the tests before you code, and don't stop coding until the tests
>> work. Voila, bug production drops by an order of magnitude, even if you
>> completely suck at writing tests. If you get good at it, and with all that
>> practice you will get good at it, and it'll drop by another order of
>> magnitude.
>>
>> In short, XP.
>>
>> This topic, and the answer, has been around a long time. A few articles
>> relating to this subject:
>>
>> http://xprogramming.com/articles/which-end-of-the-horse/
>> http://xprogramming.com/articles/expcardconversationconfirmation/
>> http://xprogramming.com/articles/where-can-we-reduce-quality/
>> http://xprogramming.com/blog/discovering-essential-technical-practices/
>> http://xprogramming.com/articles/manual-testing-does-exist-and-it-is-bad/
>> http://xprogramming.com/articles/kate-oneal-handling-defects/
>>
>> Ron Jeffries
>> www.XProgramming.com
>> Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor -- Anne Lamott
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Smith
> http://Ardalis.com/
> http://twitter.com/ardalis
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Steve Smith <ssmith.lists@...>wrote:

> I'm not sure who said it first (it wasn't me), but I like the quote:
> "If you have a process that is producing defects, then you have a defective
> process."
>
> Steve
>
>
A dangerous quote - it is people who do or do not produce defects.
  Processes can only help or hinder.

A process that attempts to make it impossible for people to produce defects
would be too prescriptive to be efficient or to produce learning or
innovation.  We would all much prefer a process that facilitates people
learning to get better, but then such a process would allow defects along
the way.

SteveG


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Steven,

On Mar 13, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:

> A process that attempts to make it impossible for people to produce defects
> would be too prescriptive to be efficient or to produce learning or
> innovation. We would all much prefer a process that facilitates people
> learning to get better, but then such a process would allow defects along
> the way.


Could you perhaps phrase this idea in such a way as to do two things that this
does not:

First, offer advice on what one might do, rather than on what one ought not do,
and, second, offer advice that tends to lead to a continuing reduction of
defects?

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I have two cats, and a big house full of cat stuff.
The cats fight and divide up the house, messing up their own lives.
Nice work cats.
Meow.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Charlie Poole <charliepoole@...>wrote:

> Problems found when a story was initially believed to be finished either
> meant the story wasn't finished or that a new story had to be written.
>
Problems found later became a (possibly high priority) story.


That is effectively, although perhaps not consciously, the "lean
manufacturing" route.

ie. Throttle the rate of defect injection / increase defect fix to match
that of defect discovery.

ie. No queues.


> > b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that
> you
>  > balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect fixers
> > until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical. (No
> > queues)
>




--
John Carter                             Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics                        Fax   : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch                Email : john.carter@...
New Zealand

--

------------------------------
This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended recipient.
It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal
or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this
transmission.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate,
distribute or reproduce such email, any attachments, or any part thereof.
If you have received a message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments.
Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or
corrupted during transmission nor can we guarantee that any email or any
attachments are free from computer viruses or other conditions which may
damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The
recipient relies upon its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and of
opening any attachments.
------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One might try to create an uber-prescriptive process that makes defects
impossible - and it might be successful, in that it might prevent any work
at all from getting done (but hey, zero bugs!).  I think we both agree that
a more appropriate process is one that is more flexible and adaptable and
lets the people involved (whom I agree are the most important part) do the
right things to prevent shipping defects.  Of course mistakes and learning
will happen - the process should simply encourage this kind of learning and
improving the process to prevent defects from shipping (and to prevent
known defects from recurring).

Steve



On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Steve Smith <ssmith.lists@...
> >wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not sure who said it first (it wasn't me), but I like the quote:
> > "If you have a process that is producing defects, then you have a
> defective
> > process."
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> A dangerous quote - it is people who do or do not produce defects.
> Processes can only help or hinder.
>
> A process that attempts to make it impossible for people to produce defects
> would be too prescriptive to be efficient or to produce learning or
> innovation. We would all much prefer a process that facilitates people
> learning to get better, but then such a process would allow defects along
> the way.
>
> SteveG
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
Steve Smith
http://Ardalis.com/
http://twitter.com/ardalis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sure, I'm @ardalis and I actually tweeted it myself right after posting
this... :)


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Keith Ray <keith.ray@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Can I quote you on that ? (Twitter)
>
> C. Keith Ray
> http://agilesolutionspace.blogspot.com/
> twitter: @ckeithray
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Steve Smith <ssmith.lists@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure who said it first (it wasn't me), but I like the quote:
> > "If you have a process that is producing defects, then you have a
> defective
> > process."
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello, John,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 12, 2013, at 11:47 PM, John Carter <john.carter@...>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> a) The Obvious and most Desirable route is Magic Happens, and
> developers
> >>> create so few defects there aren't any defects for the testers to find.
> >>>
> >>> b) The "lean manufacturing", less desirable, but still sane answer that
> >> you
> >>> balance the number of testers, new feature developers, and defect
> fixers
> >>> until the rates of defect injection, discovery and fix are identical.
> (No
> >>> queues)
> >>>
> >>> c) The even less desirable, but still vaguely sanish answer that when
> the
> >>> sticky notes have covered the door... you start throwing away the least
> >>> important (and rely on the tester's memory that we found that bug
> before,
> >>> but threw it away).
> >>>
> >>> d) The totally unacceptable route that you have so few / so weak
> testers
> >>> that despite an ever growing pool of defects, they aren't finding them.
> >>
> >> I have to say that I'm a bit surprised to see you asking this question.
> >>
> >> Alistair's point is that good teams don't have very many defects.
> Frankly
> >> I don't see why they'd need a whole bloody door.
> >>
> >> The correct option is (a), but it's not done with magic, it's done by
> >> being ****ing competent. Let's face it, if developers are creating
> defects,
> >> they are to that extent incompetent.
> >>
> >> The notion included in (b) seems to think that only testers can find
> >> defects and only "defect fixers" can fix them. XP and all Agile methods
> are
> >> about cross-functional teams. The team tests, the team finds defects,
> the
> >> team fixes them.
> >>
> >> How do they do that?
> >>
> >> Add testing skill to the development team. One way to do this is to
> merge
> >> the existing testers right in. Clearly the team needs all the necessary
> >> skills to develop each feature, yes? Well, if the features are shipping
> >> with defects, then clearly the team needs more testing.
> >> Use Acceptance Test-Driven Development. Each feature's description
> >> includes defined and preferably automated tests (checks) of examples of
> >> that feature's correct operation. Developers, not being stupid, do not
> pass
> >> code on until it passes all these tests. See the "Three C's" notion.
> These
> >> are "Customer Tests".
> >> Analyze every defect. When defects arise, figure out how each one
> >> occurred. Since you are doing Acceptance Test-Driven Development, it is
> >> evident that there is at least one missing test. Write that check, plus
> all
> >> the others that occur to you in light of the missing one. Beef up your
> >> overall approach to ATDD, improving how you define new tests. Retrofit
> old
> >> tests as indicated.
> >> Use Test-Driven Development. Developers write no line of code until they
> >> have a failing test asking for that very line of code. These are
> >> "Programmer Tests", sometimes called unit tests. As in step 3 above,
> when
> >> defects show up, they also indicate that TDD tests are missing. Write
> >> those, learn from it.
> >>
> >> "Won't that take forever, all that testing? We'll never get done!"
> >>
> >> You'll never get done now! Your god-blessed bug database is filling up
> and
> >> your thrice-blessed programmers are piling more dead code on top of the
> >> existing dead code. When were you planning to fix all these bugs, in
> >> Fixtober, Bugvember, and Defectcember? I'm sorry, those months were
> >> cancelled. Better fix them now.
> >>
> >> It takes less time to prevent a defect than to fix it. So invest the
> time
> >> to write the tests before you code, and don't stop coding until the
> tests
> >> work. Voila, bug production drops by an order of magnitude, even if you
> >> completely suck at writing tests. If you get good at it, and with all
> that
> >> practice you will get good at it, and it'll drop by another order of
> >> magnitude.
> >>
> >> In short, XP.
> >>
> >> This topic, and the answer, has been around a long time. A few articles
> >> relating to this subject:
> >>
> >> http://xprogramming.com/articles/which-end-of-the-horse/
> >> http://xprogramming.com/articles/expcardconversationconfirmation/
> >> http://xprogramming.com/articles/where-can-we-reduce-quality/
> >> http://xprogramming.com/blog/discovering-essential-technical-practices/
> >>
> http://xprogramming.com/articles/manual-testing-does-exist-and-it-is-bad/
> >> http://xprogramming.com/articles/kate-oneal-handling-defects/
> >>
> >> Ron Jeffries
> >> www.XProgramming.com
> >> Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor -- Anne Lamott
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Steve Smith
> > http://Ardalis.com/
> > http://twitter.com/ardalis
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
>
> >
> > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@eGroups.com
> >
> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> >
> > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Steve Smith
http://Ardalis.com/
http://twitter.com/ardalis


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:19 AM, <steveropa@...> wrote:

> I had the same experience, and it actually got me laid off.  Our team was
> consistently producing zero bugs, or if something did escape, it was so
> small and taken care of so quickly that it didn’t register in some system.
>

One push back I always get is "You can't expect zero bugs on the scale of
software we're doing (200+ man years multi-threaded embedded C). Of course
you don't get (many) defects on small codebases... but our defect injection
/ discovery / fix rates are quite inline with industry standards text books
on large scale software."

Anybody have any observations on Zero  Defects vs Scale?


--
John Carter                             Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics                        Fax   : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch                Email : john.carter@...
New Zealand

--

------------------------------
This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended recipient.
It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal
or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this
transmission.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate,
distribute or reproduce such email, any attachments, or any part thereof.
If you have received a message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments.
Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or
corrupted during transmission nor can we guarantee that any email or any
attachments are free from computer viruses or other conditions which may
damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The
recipient relies upon its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and of
opening any attachments.
------------------------------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,

On 3/13/13 4:24 PM, John Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:19 AM, <steveropa@...> wrote:
>
>> I had the same experience, and it actually got me laid off.  Our team was
>> consistently producing zero bugs, or if something did escape, it was so
>> small and taken care of so quickly that it didn’t register in some system.
>>
>
> One push back I always get is "You can't expect zero bugs on the scale of
> software we're doing (200+ man years multi-threaded embedded C). Of course
> you don't get (many) defects on small codebases... but our defect injection
> / discovery / fix rates are quite inline with industry standards text books
> on large scale software."

I think this is another case of expecting to get bugs and then getting them.

> Anybody have any observations on Zero  Defects vs Scale?

Part of the issue with scaling, is the implicit expectation to do more
work without scaling the attention to detail to the same amount. If you
pay less attention to the details, you'll get more bugs, as well as more
of other problems.

   - George

--
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
    Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
    Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi Steven,
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:
>
> > A process that attempts to make it impossible for people to produce
> defects
> > would be too prescriptive to be efficient or to produce learning or
> > innovation. We would all much prefer a process that facilitates people
> > learning to get better, but then such a process would allow defects along
> > the way.
>
> Could you perhaps phrase this idea in such a way as to do two things that
> this does not:
>
> First, offer advice on what one might do, rather than on what one ought
> not do, and, second, offer advice that tends to lead to a continuing
> reduction of defects?
>

I would agree with offering advice, but I would prefer not to prescribe it.
  In practice, teams generally follow said advice much better if they own it.


>
> Ron Jeffries
> www.XProgramming.com
> I have two cats, and a big house full of cat stuff.
> The cats fight and divide up the house, messing up their own lives.
> Nice work cats.
> Meow.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi John,

I can't prove it but I feel intuitively (and my experience matches the
feeling) that bug "injection" is related more closely to rate of code
change rather than size of codebase by itself.

Nevertheless, here are a few simple experiential observations...

... if you don't change the code at all, no new bugs are created (although
some might be discovered)
... if you change the code more rapidly, while not increasing your
attention to testing, bugs will increase generally
... if you change the code more rapidly, without releasing more frequently,
bugs found after release will increase

With regard to the comment you have received about "industry standards" my
own answer is usually to ask if the folks are satisfied with being merely
"standard." I react similarly when the phrase "state of the art" is used.

YMMV, of course.

Charlie



On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM, John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:19 AM, <steveropa@...> wrote:
>
> > I had the same experience, and it actually got me laid off. Our team was
> > consistently producing zero bugs, or if something did escape, it was so
> > small and taken care of so quickly that it didn’t register in some
> system.
> >
>
> One push back I always get is "You can't expect zero bugs on the scale of
> software we're doing (200+ man years multi-threaded embedded C). Of course
> you don't get (many) defects on small codebases... but our defect injection
> / discovery / fix rates are quite inline with industry standards text books
> on large scale software."
>
> Anybody have any observations on Zero Defects vs Scale?
>
> --
> John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
> Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
> PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@...
> New Zealand
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------
> This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended recipient.
> It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of
> legal
> or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this
> transmission.
> If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate,
> distribute or reproduce such email, any attachments, or any part thereof.
> If you have received a message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments.
> Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or
> corrupted during transmission nor can we guarantee that any email or any
> attachments are free from computer viruses or other conditions which may
> damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The
> recipient relies upon its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and
> of
> opening any attachments.
> ------------------------------
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi John,

On Mar 13, 2013, at 4:24 PM, John Carter <john.carter@...> wrote:

> Anybody have any observations on Zero Defects vs Scale?


Do you work one day at a time?

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Sometimes you just have to stop holding on with both hands, both feet, and your
tail, to get someplace better.
Of course you might plummet to the earth and die, but probably not: you were
made for this.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ron Jeffries wrote:
> > ... as if there were other kinds of problems. ;-)
> Oh, there are. Like if the team doesn't know how to write code that
> works, and tests that demonstrate that fact.

Fair enough. But I would say that's a natural occurrence, or imperfection
if you will. No-one is born with coding skills, we all learn.

Now if or how big this is a problem, depends on communication. If I don't
talk about it or they don't listen, then problem grows. So I observe that
problems in communication are able to create proportionally greater
disasters than anything else.

Michal Svoboda

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
> Poole
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:58 AM
> To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [XP] Back of the Door Sticky Note Issue Tracking.
>
> Hi George,
>
> Maybe we should just say "Yes, we cheated. And we figured out a way to
> keep cheating, so that tests keep passing. Do you want us to stop?"
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 9:52 PM, George Dinwiddie
> <lists@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > On 3/13/13 12:42 AM, John Carter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, George Dinwiddie
> > > <lists@...>wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've seen a team of ordinary programmers reach the state of
> > >> frequently shipping zero bugs (even measured after deployment), and
> > >> quickly taking care of the ones that escaped an iteration. It's not
magic.
> > >>
> > >
> > > This is the Very Interesting Answer which I would like to bring home
> > > to
> > the
> > > rest of the company....
> > >
> > > My colleagues are quite comfortable with the "lean manufacturing" no
> > queues
> > > answer, but plain flat out don't believe the "No Defect Magic" answer.
> > >
> > > So I'm looking for data / evidence / stories / books / papers to
> > > convince them that we could do better.
> >
> > Do you think that will convince them?
> >
> > It didn't even convince the organization around them. The comment on
> > their first release, when 92% of the release test scripts passed on
> > the first attempt, was "they cheated; they tested ahead of time." I
> > think it was the second or third release when they hit 100%.
> >
> > Yes, they tested, not always automated. They also had a sign on the
> > wall that said "Zero bugs, the new normal."
> >
> > - George
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com Software Development
> > http://www.idiacomputing.com Consultant and Coach
> > http://www.agilemaryland.org
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-
> unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>