|
Those were the days. Not anymore. 
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
I usually despise all the "It was better before" whining, but I think I am getting old and tired ...
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
When were those days? 
|
|
|
|
|
2002 -> 2005. There were no Lounge rules back then.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I arrived in 2006, and the forum police was doing fine already then.
Then the voting came and a lot of people complained. I didn't notice a real difference.
Then the reporting came. Ok, no big problem. Then the downvoting disappeared and I noticed a rise in reports. 
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: Look where the Lounge 'wrath' has brought us :
Rage wrote: not to be 'flamed'...
I guess, I have seen this kind of disclaimer earlier in this week. This is the second instance.
Even, The bunch of people in lounge is more than the specific subject of forum.
I must say this is fine however somewhere somehow it may have gone very hard(wrath) to someone to get this kind of disclaimers popping each day.
You can have all the tools in the world but if you don't genuinely believe in yourself, it's useless.
|
|
|
|
|
You got me exactly right !
I have been observer of lounge for more than a year and reads many threads if not all. I have seen people getting offended on trivial stuff, having a go on newbie and defaulters (to the unwritten rules set in).
It tool quite a while to form the sentence above to make sure I am not at the receiving end.
Thanks once again and hope the patience and tolerance level restores
Thanks,
Milind
modified 26-Feb-14 9:00am.
|
|
|
|
|
UAT is done by user base NOT the the developers / delivery team.
The question arises when a piece is pulled, for whatever reason from a build. If it is in isolated components and there are no other changes there, then it can be done simply by not including it. Sometimes the code goes in, but the function is hidden or disabled [done this more than once].
Once you've got your build, it should go through QA who should not just check that the deliverables are there and working but that the pulled changes are not accessible. The hard part for the delivery is then do you say anything about the pulled changes. If the code is delivered but disabled, I would have a note in the release document stating that changes have been made to component X, but these are not available and are waiting for the release of component/change Y. It is then the clients call if it should be part of UAT.
Sign off of UAT is rarely without caveats for large systems. Another side of pulling is that the delivered component does not work. Can you patch before going to production or should you pull it. If it's pulled then we go back to the isolation issue. If you can, disable the function, if you can't then a rebuild or at least a patch is required to take it out. Never allow the client to hack a change, deliver it to them in an agreed format that they can apply.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the response Nagy.
I have just replied back to Rutvik above. At times, the push is heavy and we scramble around hastily to comment/pin the pervious version, rebuild, deploy and test..
Just wanted to know how others handle this situation.
Thanks,
Milind
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: UAT is done by user base NOT the the developers / delivery team.
That assumes that developers and delivery team are not part of the user base. In many case, they are an integral part of the user base.
|
|
|
|
|
You are confusing the logical with the physical. UAT, as the name suggests, must be done by users. When the dev is the user, then he gets to where two hats.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not confusing anything. Your statement was:
UAT is done by user base NOT the the developers / delivery team.
I merely pointed out that developers CAN be users; they are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
Tell your computer: do not inhale ! [^]
“The best hope is that one of these days the Ground will get disgusted enough just to walk away ~ leaving people with nothing more to stand ON than what they have so bloody well stood FOR up to now.” Kenneth Patchen, Poet
|
|
|
|
|
Oh good one more thing to worry about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A university is not a person. Liverpudlian is the term used to describe someone from Liverpool (you can use the term scouser as well).
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, how about "Hub-cap Thieving Dole Cheats"?
[Do you think that might be a tad too non-PC?]
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that they "wallow in their victim status" - they love it when you say that!
"[They] cannot accept that they might have made any contribution to their misfortunes, but seek rather to blame someone else for it, thereby deepening their sense of shared tribal grievance about the rest of society." B Johnson, Spectator, 2004
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
"Liverpool:
English city on the River Mersey, Liuerpul (c.1190) "Pool with Muddy Water," from Old English lifer "thick, clotted water" + pol (see pool (n.1)). "The original reference was to a pool or tidal creek now filled up into which two streams drained" [Victor Watts, "Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names," 2004]. The adjective and noun Liverpudlian (with jocular substitution of puddle for pool) is attested from 1833." [^]
Oh well, I guess my poetic license has been revoked then ... no more puns, similes, analogies, metaphors, personifications
Full disclosure: I knew not that the noun form trumps the adjectival form in usage, currently.
“The best hope is that one of these days the Ground will get disgusted enough just to walk away ~ leaving people with nothing more to stand ON than what they have so bloody well stood FOR up to now.” Kenneth Patchen, Poet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I'm very new to object oriented programming. Having just read Text editor Vs IDE[^] do folks think from the start it would be better to learn using a text editor rather than an IDE (Honest question...don't want to start any arguments )?
|
|
|
|
|
IDE - no contest.
It helps you at every turn: it prompts you with method names and properties, it helps remind you of function parameters, and it tells you when you misspell something as you go along. It handles indentation, and it works exactly the same when debugging as it does when you are editing.
Ignore the purists: I started with text editors and I wouldn't go back!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. 
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I started with text editors and I wouldn't go back!
Same here!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, technically I didn't start with text editors: it was punched cards, which were like text editors with bad attitude and no "backspace" key... 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
