Posted by Myles on Thu Sep 10 5:08:48 1998
In Reply to: Re: ISO 9000-3 meets the Bazaar posted by William Chesters on August 29, 1998 at 17:56:19:
| Distribution: | paneris@i-way.co.uk | lurker@paneris.co.uk |
|---|
Thank you very much Will. I've been asking what adopting
ISO-9000 would mean to us for a while, and I think this
answers my question.I feel as though we are making progress on the first few issues
(Project Plan and Specifications), although and our main obstacle
is versioning and bug reports. This is the least formalised
part of the way we operate (although we have had some problem
with roles as well...), but I am still not convinced that "automating"
them is as important as just having them in the first place.I can understand the conflict between Bazaar and QA, but I
wonder how much the reviewers (us) actually make changes for
us at the minute, as opposed to reporting them to the project
leader or developer. The closest we get to such Bazaar development
is the PMS which at the minute locks the entire system (let alone
individual files) but doesn't enforce that (you can still upload
your work all over someone elses) and we've had problems (with only
2 developers involved :-)How refreshing to hear someone else say that how you indent your HTML
is not that important! I would be very strongly against a similar checker
for Perl scripts, especially since TimP does it incorrectly :-)On the subject of news servers with a gateway to mailing lists, we don't
even need that. Just a mailing list with an archive would be better than
the message boards, but CoCo board goes even further allowing web or mail
access to messages/attachments (I know most mailing list can handle them
now) and other nifty collaborative working do-dads.So, let's forget about how we might be able to automate the checking of the
boxes (surely its important to have a human do that...) and decide what ISO-9000
documents and processes we need. Tim?Myles