Alin Nastac wrote:
I find "active devs" metric a useful one.Until a year ago, the number of
active devs was linearly rising, but in last year we seem to hit a ceil
(175) - either recruiter team is understaffed or our organization
reached the maximum number of individuals who can work together wit
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Also, in the case were the 'fix' doesn't actually fix the bug, you waste
> alot more development time by letting it slip through and having to
> 'fix' it again later. So you can justify the time cost now, with time
> saved later.
Just think of it as branch prediction.
If t
Nathan L. Adams wrote:
> Jory, I take issue with that. I am not ranting. I am proposing a way to
> *improve* QA.
Some thoughts from a humble user:
Any improvement must neither excessively waste developer nor user time,
it is the most scarce resource. To optimize this, the common case must
be made
