Man this company just doesn't get it
-
This is my headcanon when I see a simple but long lasting bug like this at a large company.
To you or I, it seems simple. Clearly things are not working as intended and the fix is trivial. Raise a bug in the tracking system if you really have to, then just fix it, right?
Here's the thing. That code was written completely according to the specification. The path there was clearly there in the requirements. So what? So...that means it's not a bug, it's a feature change. And if it's not a bug, that means we can't officially use our allocated (but always shrinking) bugfix time to work on it.
If we want to fix it, we need to put in a feature change request. That means we have to articulate the value to the business in changing this feature and explain why we think the original specification is wrong. We can't get confirmation from the spec author because they are no longer with the company. That means we have to prove that it was written incorrectly.
If...and that's a big if, we can articulate that there's business value in doing this and that the original specification was likely incorrect, then we get to the really fun part. Prioritisation.
You see, the team that built that feature doesn't exist anymore. Once the bulk of the features were done, they got disbanded and the engineers moved to other teams. Technically there should be a single team responsible for every feature so it gets maintained, but in practice it doesn't really work that way. The people on the official team that's responsible haven't touched any of that code. They're not too keen on starting either because they have their own priorities.
So after all that, the task sits in the backlog of that team, neglected. Eventually in some distanct sprint planning session it will be flagged as an old ticket. You, who raised it, would have left the company and nobody in the meeting has context about why the task was created. Isn't that miscategorised, shouldn't it be a bug? Why is it with our team, is it even worth doing? Then it will be pruned from the backlog. The sad task that was fought for so valiantly, only to die sadly in the cutting room floor of a backlog grooming session.
Then one day, the bug will annoy a newcomer so much, they'll just sneak the change in under another ticket and the bug will finally be fixed. Months before the product gets scrapped for a worse replacement. What are the specifications of the replacement software based on? That's right, the original specs of the old system to ensure backwards compatibility.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Must be nice to work work in such an agile company. Around here, we need to produce an updated requirements specification. Review that specification internally. Send the updated specification out to stakeholders for review. Put a bug in the backlog. Wait until someone important files a new bug report (which is now an actual bug report). Actually produce a fix. Hold a change review meeting. Merge the fix. Test the fix. Fail during testing because the tester is new to the project and flags 100 critical bugs that have been sitting in the backlog for years. Ship a release. Receive a bug report that we no longer produce screenshots. Fly an engineer to location to investigate. Advice the customer to update a 5 line script to point to the new location. "We don't have bandwidth to update that system.". Hide the fix behind an obscure undocumented option that defaults to off. Ship an emergency bug fix. Wait for the next bug report. Close bug report as "user error. User forgot to set enable 'screenshots are not videos' flag in tweaks>advanced>video menu ".
-
Must be nice to work work in such an agile company. Around here, we need to produce an updated requirements specification. Review that specification internally. Send the updated specification out to stakeholders for review. Put a bug in the backlog. Wait until someone important files a new bug report (which is now an actual bug report). Actually produce a fix. Hold a change review meeting. Merge the fix. Test the fix. Fail during testing because the tester is new to the project and flags 100 critical bugs that have been sitting in the backlog for years. Ship a release. Receive a bug report that we no longer produce screenshots. Fly an engineer to location to investigate. Advice the customer to update a 5 line script to point to the new location. "We don't have bandwidth to update that system.". Hide the fix behind an obscure undocumented option that defaults to off. Ship an emergency bug fix. Wait for the next bug report. Close bug report as "user error. User forgot to set enable 'screenshots are not videos' flag in tweaks>advanced>video menu ".
Right...
We had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before we went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down the mill, and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home... our dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah." -
This post did not contain any content.
I mean if you think about it, screen shots are just single frame videos
️ -
This post did not contain any content.
Just patch it so it saves where you like it. Oh you don't have the source? Sucks to be you.
-
Any Linux users here?
~/Pictures/Screenshotsall my homies use ~
-
I mean if you think about it, screen shots are just single frame videos
️Buy videos are just a series of pictures. How do we sort this out...
-
That may be true in some truly well organized (usually "legacy big corpo" companies).
Where I've worked it's more like:
- Requirements only cover user-facing features, if that. (Not so) senior engineers are left to bridge the gap between UI mockups and literally everything else.
- Implementation issue is accidentally introduced
- Priority on the bug is lower than new features so no-one has any way to justify working on it
- One day a dev might be personally annoyed enough by the issue that they fix the part as part of some tangentially related work. Else it stays like that forever.
That is a basic side-effect of Agile development. If you have implementation details figured out to such an extent before writing the code, you are not doing agile, you are doing waterfall. Which has a time and a place, but that time and place is typically banking or medical or wherever you're okay with spending several times the time and money to get maximum reliability (which is a different metric than quality!).
I bet NVIDIA has driver crashes to figure out, and I know which of those issues I'd want them to focus on first if I used their windows driver.
Agile in corpo is usually the soul-crushing, not working kind, where the participants don't get the decision power they need for it to be working and not soul-crushing.
-
Greenshot is better.
-
Right...
We had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before we went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down the mill, and pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home... our dad would kill us and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."And you try to tell the young people of today that, they won't believe you.
-
Buy videos are just a series of pictures. How do we sort this out...
Thunderdome
