Board index » off-topic » QC voting methods and "feature creep"
|
John Herbster
Delphi Developer |
|
John Herbster
Delphi Developer |
QC voting methods and "feature creep"2007-11-12 11:14:58 PM off-topic9 So many persons have ideas about so many different aspects of the QualityCentral voting system and so very few have a good perspective of the big picture and the goals. I would hate to be commissioned with the task of redesigning or even improving the system. It could never ending feature creep. --JohnH |
| Leo Siefert
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-13 08:33:16 PM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
John Herbster wrote:
QuoteSo many persons have ideas ... - Leo |
| John Herbster
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-13 10:05:47 PM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
"Leo Siefert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
Quote>So many persons have ideas ... It could --JohnH {smallsort} |
| AlexB
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-14 12:24:38 PM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
John Herbster wrote:
QuoteThen I suggest that we start by refining a statement Alex |
| Leo Siefert
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-14 08:38:20 PM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
John Herbster wrote:
QuoteThen I suggest that we start by refining a statement decide on changing things when everyone agrees. (I work for the state senate, so you might consider me an expert on this process.) Nick and Chris have already stated pretty clearly what the goals are, and they are the people in a position to do this - it's their job. They want to see greater participation and a larger number of votes on reports. Look at Chris' last post in the thread preceding this one for some good justification. Quotebefore we start proposing the mechanics. mechanics many times over the years. Now Chris has proposed a changes and asked for comments. But your reaction seems to be suggesting that we just stop and go back five years to a beginning of the discussion. If we are too afraid to try something new then we all lose. - Leo |
| John Herbster
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-15 03:37:47 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
"Leo Siefert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
Quote... Nick and Chris have already stated pretty clearly others) to a concise statement of the goals of the QualityCentral voting. Thank you, JohnH |
| Brion L. Webster
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-15 04:08:47 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Markus.Humm wrote:
QuoteHello, From: "Lori M Olson [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > Subject: Re: Right justified comments in QC web interface ever going to befixed? Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:19:13 -0600 Message-ID: <4702ee0f$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM > Oops - on October 12, she says it's being written in 3rd Rail: From: "Lori M Olson [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > Subject: Re: Vote -5 to +5 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:02:29 -0600 Message-ID: <470f8c84$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM > -- -Brion There's no such thing as 'one, true way;' - Mercedes Lackey |
| Markus.Humm
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-15 04:27:44 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Hello,
as a first start I'd try to repair the web client as this even got worse at some point a few months agao as one can neither rate nor vote with it right now. Also changing something entered or adding an attachment seems either impossible or broken. I think these things could be fixed without much discussion, can they? Greetings Markus |
| Brion L. Webster
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-15 05:34:10 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Lori M Olson [TeamB] wrote:
QuoteThat's me. I'm currently doing battle with Apache configurations on the given the benefit of hindsight. -- -Brion There's no such thing as 'one, true way;' - Mercedes Lackey |
| Lori M Olson [TeamB]
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-15 06:04:14 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Brion L. Webster wrote:
QuoteMarkus.Humm wrote: and/or vote with up first, followed by other fun stuff in fairly short order. -- Regards, Lori Olson [TeamB] |
| Lori M Olson [TeamB]
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-15 12:58:34 PM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Brion L. Webster wrote:
QuoteLori M Olson [TeamB] wrote: One would not use Jbuilder for this, since it was a Rails project. And, if what you are asking is... would I rather have done it in Java? Absolutely not. If you are talking about choice of IDE... JBuilder doesn't support Rails. The options include (but are not limited to) Netbeans, RadRails/Aptana, IntelliJ IDEA, TextMate (I am a Mac user), and Komodo. I choose 3rdRail over all of those at present. QC is not my only Rails project. I've been working with Ruby on Rails for over 2 years (and bugging CodeGear about producing a Rails IDE for most of that time). I have personal experience with RadRails and TextMate and Emacs and (yech) Dreamweaver for Rails development. Definitely prefer 3rdRail over all those other choices. -- Regards, Lori Olson [TeamB] ------------ Save yourself, and everyone else, some time and search the newsgroups and the FAQ-O-Matic before posting your next question. Google Advanced Newsgroup Search www.google.ca/advanced_group_search Other Newsgroup Searches: www.borland.com/newsgroups/ngsearch.html Joi Ellis's FAQ-O-Matic: www.visi.com/~gyles19/fom-serve/cache/1.html |
| Leo Siefert
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-15 09:13:21 PM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
John Herbster wrote:
QuoteI missed that. Can you, please, point me (and posted on the door of the cathedral but to a number of separate comments in their postings. One goal from Chris initial post on changing the voting process: QuoteThis encourages and rewards folks for taking the challenging Quotemaking Top Ten lists, they don't look very compelling QuoteWe simply aren't getting enough input. The bell curve is really flat Quotewe want to establish a bell curve, and the 1 person votes that weigh QuoteSimple, easy to explain, easy to do. QuoteI think the more we move away from the flat/lack of curve of the There has clearly been discussion about this and Chris and Nick are on the same page - they need more users supplying more information in the voting process. They also need more sysops to help work through the backlog of unopened reports. Those are goals and they make sense. I see no reason to question them now, especially among users. They asked for comments on the mechanics that they proposed to solve the problem - that's why the discussion has been about mechanics. And they have clearly indicated the goals they wish to achieve. - Leo |
| Brion L. Webster
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-16 12:08:39 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Lori M Olson [TeamB] wrote:
QuoteOne would not use Jbuilder for this, since it was a Rails project. And, QuoteIf you are talking about choice of IDE... JBuilder doesn't support Rails. JBuilder nomination to TeamB. That could be entirely incorrect to begin with. I'm also a little fuzzy as to what types of solution RoR is appropriate for. Of course, to a RoR convert, all problems are merely flat spots waiting for railroad tracks to be laid down. <g> The other thing I'd be curious to know is what pain points or interesting things you've found, using 3rd Rail. I quite like David Clegg's blog on interesting things he's found with ECO, or Blackfish SQL, as he's implementing various projects. Not necessarily casting aspersions, just things that didn't work as expected, and how he worked around them or changed his method of thinking. I think those kind of insights would be valuable for other CodeGear customers. Then again, 3rd Rail could be the first perfect IDE! -- -Brion There's no such thing as 'one, true way;' - Mercedes Lackey |
| Brad White
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-16 01:50:12 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Brion L. Webster wrote :
QuoteThe other thing I'd be curious to know is what pain points or interesting That and I'd expect to see ways that using the IDE changed your thinking or approach to a problem. Brad. |
| Brad White
Delphi Developer |
2007-11-17 07:17:15 AM
Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"
Brion L. Webster used his keyboard to write :
QuoteLori M Olson [TeamB] wrote: 10 pushups. 8:-) Brad. |
