What to say?

[Hill Station Murthy]

Why do QA reject things?

Ok, let me explain this to you once and for all.

The goal of this strategy that I describe to you is to buy some time for further development. By making documentation more werbose, by introducing ambiguity into this documentation, the aim is to confuse QA so that they reject RC but the way I make this work is that QA are always the parties who end up with the egg on their face.

[d000hg]

the release is made up of multiple changes that are not related therefore the release can go ahead in December but I recommended that we pull this particular change from the release and implement it end of Q1 shortly after the upgrade. So essntially your option 4 and my option 3 are the same.

That makes it sound pretty cut-n-dried IMO then; this is the right way... you can do this and still discuss patching prod directly, and then conveniently forget about it

[TheFaQQer]

That makes it sound pretty cut-n-dried IMO then; this is the right way... you can do this and still discuss patching prod directly, and then conveniently drag out the time until you've done the upgrade and it's no longer an issue

FTFY

[Mich the Tester]

Ok, let me explain this to you once and for all.

The goal of this strategy that I describe to you is to buy some time for further development. By making documentation more werbose, by introducing ambiguity into this documentation, the aim is to confuse QA so that they reject RC but the way I make this work is that QA are always the parties who end up with the egg on their face.

I tell you what; I know I look thick and I've been knocked unconscious on a rugby pitch a few times, but I'm not that thick.

[Pondlife]

I tell you what; I know I look thick and I've been knocked unconscious on a rugby pitch a few times, but I'm not that thick.

Mods, Can we have a new fishing rod smilie please.

[original PM]

Ok, let me explain this to you once and for all.

The goal of this strategy that I describe to you is to buy some time for further development. By making documentation more werbose, by introducing ambiguity into this documentation, the aim is to confuse QA so that they reject RC but the way I make this work is that QA are always the parties who end up with the egg on their face.

You goon - you do not buy time for future development you accept that the current development is not up to standard so it is not released until fixed - or as Chef said you release without the change which is causing the problem.

It is people like you with who will not stand up and tell the truth who cause the rest of us professionals so much trouble.

Unless the company is heamoraging (sp!) money and the risk involved in putting in the buggy change is less than the risk to the business of putting in no change at all.

[JoJoGabor]

Ok, let me explain this to you once and for all.

The goal of this strategy that I describe to you is to buy some time for further development. By making documentation more werbose, by introducing ambiguity into this documentation, the aim is to confuse QA so that they reject RC but the way I make this work is that QA are always the parties who end up with the egg on their face.

Jeezuz you would knowingly waste the time of a whole team, plus yourself, rather than stand up honestly and say, we need more time to develop the fix.

I am confused just reading your post withh those long words I don't understand!

[vetran]

Easy

Of course we can develop in production, it obviously breaches Best practice :

link X,Y,Z

& Company policy
Link

but as its going against our recommendations so long as you take full responsibility in writing for all risks I am willing to go ahead and over ride the QA failures using your authority. Or do you want to try option 3?

Option 3 suddenly looks attractive to most managers.

[Freamon]

Possibly the hotel you have been looking for:

Account Suspended

This Account Has Been Suspended

.....