• Hermun (unregistered) in reply to faoileag
    pjt33:
    Can anyone with a high tolerance for incomprehensibility summarise the story?

    Here's the real version of the story:

    • company X is late delivering an app project;
    • a temp is brought in to help deliver the app;
    • the temp claims to be an experienced app developer for unrelated systems;
    • temp does his best, but local QA folk are less forgiving than he's seen before;
    • code deemed dangerous to the system (library installed without license, etc) by QA is removed from source control by QA;
    • after QA's testcase are passed, app has to be build using a version of Visual Studio without the toolbars and add-ins temp always has to use;
    • temp manages to compile app after an allnighter;
    • when app is finally deployed it crashes;
    • because the version of the released app is different to the app the temp submitted to QA;
    • because according to the temp QA "took too long" to get it tested;
    • temp's superior sides with head of QA;
    • temp is given the boot;
    • temp still thinks temp is the greatest programmer anywhere and it was the tools that let him down.
  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Hermun
    Hermun:
    pjt33:
    Can anyone with a high tolerance for incomprehensibility summarise the story?

    Here's the real version of the story:

    • company X is late delivering an app project;
    • a temp is brought in to help deliver the app;
    • the temp claims to be an experienced app developer for unrelated systems;
    • temp does his best, but local QA folk are less forgiving than he's seen before;
    • code deemed dangerous to the system (library installed without license, etc) by QA is removed from source control by QA;
    • after QA's testcase are passed, app has to be build using a version of Visual Studio without the toolbars and add-ins temp always has to use;
    • temp manages to compile app after an allnighter;
    • when app is finally deployed it crashes;
    • because the version of the released app is different to the app the temp submitted to QA;
    • because according to the temp QA "took too long" to get it tested;
    • temp's superior sides with head of QA;
    • temp is given the boot;
    • temp still thinks temp is the greatest programmer anywhere and it was the tools that let him down.
    ...to be fair, company X brought temp in on an already-failing project that also suffered from an incredibly slow development cycle and it's really anyone's guess whether the best programmer in the world would have fared any better.
  • (cs) in reply to chubertdev
    chubertdev:
    anonymous:
    faoileag:
    Miriam:
    Can this site's QA team please reject stories with such an inane amount of dumb sports puns?
    You must be new around here. I would be suprised if the original submission mentioned hockey even once.
    Knowing TDWTF, it probably was football (the international kind) and changing it to hockey was part of the "anonymisation" process.

    I would just like to say that ... soccer is the worst ... of sports.

    FTFY

  • Spencer (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    Spencer:
    chubertdev:
    anonymous:
    faoileag:
    Miriam:
    Can this site's QA team please reject stories with such an inane amount of dumb sports puns?
    You must be new around here. I would be suprised if the original submission mentioned hockey even once.
    Knowing TDWTF, it probably was football (the international kind) and changing it to hockey was part of the "anonymisation" process.

    I would just like to say that the offside rule in soccer is the worst rule in all of sports.

    How so? Yeah, usually it's at a really bad time (ie. chance at goal), but not having it would mean you could leave a player or two deep in the opposition's half with only the goalie between them and the goal. Rugby League and Union both have similar rules, although requiring players to be behind the kicker rather than the last line of defence.

    Leaving them at a 1 man disadvantage on the half of the field where they're trying to defend? Or I suppose the other team could just assign 1 man to guard him so it would all even out. Still not seeing the point of that rule.

    It wouldn't be that much of a disadvantage, usually only about 4 or 5 players can be reached in a pass, and often a team that's a man down (thanks to a bullshit call and a red card) can still beat a full strength team. It would take only an intercepted pass and the ball would quickly find itself with that offside player at the edge of, or even inside, the 18-yard box, while the nearest defender is probably closer to the half-way line than the ball. Another play you'd be able to do is get a player in behind the keeper and simply get the ball to him during an attack. Yeah, you'd surely see more goals in a game, but I guess that's why the rule is there. Slipping the ball past the defenders, or out-manoeuvring them in a 2- or 3-on-1 contest requires a great deal more skill than those offside plays I described. The goals are that much more spectacular for it

  • (cs)

    The key to fixing soccer would be to get rid of the offside rule, shorten the field, have fewer players, have on-the-fly changes, etc. While we're at it, why not throw some walls in there. If only there was a type of soccer like that that already exists...

  • IAmCanadian (unregistered) in reply to chubertdev

    "Metro City WTFers hockey team" -- must be The Leafs

    (<-another TDWTF why is the name spelled "Leafs" instead of "Leaves")

  • (cs) in reply to IAmCanadian
    IAmCanadian:
    "Metro City WTFers hockey team" -- must be The Leafs

    (<-another TDWTF why is the name spelled "Leafs" instead of "Leaves")

    A single player is a Maple Leaf, which is two proper, not common, noun. So the proper way to pluralize that is Maple Leafs.

    Although, they should be called the Maple Laffs.

    Addendum (2014-05-27 14:22): *nouns

    before caffeine

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Steve The Cynic:
    20 comments, and nobody has even thought to mention the issues surrounding a QA department with revert rights in the source code repository...

    Yeah, I wondered about that. In what universe does it make sense for the QA department to be changing code in any way? They're supposed to test and report problems, not fix them. And since when is reverting changes the solution to a bug? Wouldn't you want to, oh, I don't know, crazy idea, fix the bug rather than just throwing away a code change and going back to a previous version?

  • Essex Kitten (unregistered)

    Oh... the classic "we work, we don't think" paradigm.

  • Axel (unregistered)

    The thing about sports analogies is: a little bit goes a long way. This story had far more than a little bit, and went on way too long.

Leave a comment on “Quality De-Surance”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article