Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> > I know the sort of template you mean.
> > Here we have to write design documents about what we are going to do before we
> > do it and get it authorised by QA. But if there is even a minor change then the
> > doc has to be re-evaluated and all work on it stops until it goes to the next
> > status.
>
> Fun, isn't it?
>
> Oh, did I mention? The actual *testing* needs to happen before 1 Dec
> 2007. No pressure or anything. I've never actually written a full test
> document for software before, but now's a fine time to learn. :-S
>
> > Hint, put in a deliberate mistake that you can take out to keep QA happy :)
>
> Yeah. I am *so* not trying that...


better write the script as you are running a pre-test test.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...

> Am I missing something obvious here??

There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
allocated to desktops.

Try my place for size. Getting an additional 2 TB of storage added to the
SAN that's used by 3 servers is just a matter of sending an email to one
person. Is approved and will be available after the year end freeze ends.
However I've been trying, unsuccessfully, for 2 years to get an additional
40GB hard drive in my desktop.

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Am I missing something obvious here??
> 
> There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
> allocated to desktops.

Mmm, I think Gail has something here...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:


> better write the script as you are running a pre-test test.

QA would go balistic... heh.

Mind you, it seems that over at HQ, they design and develop- wait, do 
they? Oh well, anyway, they develop the software, get some people to try 
it for a few months, check it does what they want, and *then* write a 
set of user requirements that exactly match the product they developed.

In other words, all their fancy high-end policy documents about 
"validation will encompass the entire product development lifecycle from 
initial requirements gathering through implementation to eventual 
retirement" is a complete fabrication.

If anyone in my class at uni did that, they got their work rejected. If 
the UK did that with something we developed, there would be an outcry. 
But for HQ, it's perfectly OK to completely disregard their own rules 
whenever it's not convinient to follow them any more.

These people make me sick...

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:4742b3d3@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Am I missing something obvious here??
> 
> There's budget in the pool allocated to servers, but none in the budget pool
> allocated to desktops.
> 
> Try my place for size. Getting an additional 2 TB of storage added to the
> SAN that's used by 3 servers is just a matter of sending an email to one
> person. Is approved and will be available after the year end freeze ends.
> However I've been trying, unsuccessfully, for 2 years to get an additional
> 40GB hard drive in my desktop.
> 
> 

That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server 
upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.



Tom

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Austin" <taustin> wrote in message news:47432a9b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server
> upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.

Dunno if they track, but I don't work physically on the servers and I have
no access to the server rooms.

I just copy large stuff to a server that the team 'owns'. Solves the space
problems and makes the backup some else's problem

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server 
> upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.

I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs 
are Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs 
> are Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...

So buy it and expense it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:47433661$1@news.povray.org...
> Tom Austin wrote:
>
>> That can be easy to solve.  Just have a few leftover HDs from a server 
>> upgrade.  Or do they track everything that closely.
>
> I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs are 
> Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...

Oh.  Surely all HDDs are the same, they just have bigger or smaller 
gigathingys and can plug in any computer?  You mean I can't put a 
hot-swappable 15 kRPM SCSI HD in my PC?  What about low-voltage differential 
SCSI?  High-voltage differential?  It's all just mega-gigsits of storage 
surely?
  :-)

Post a reply to this message

Brian Elliott wrote:

>> I don't know about Gail, but that wouldn't work for me. The server HDs 
>> are Ultra320 SCSI, whereas the desktop HDs are Parallel-ATA...
> 
> Oh.  Surely all HDDs are the same, they just have bigger or smaller 
> gigathingys and can plug in any computer?  You mean I can't put a 
> hot-swappable 15 kRPM SCSI HD in my PC?  What about low-voltage 
> differential SCSI?  High-voltage differential?  It's all just 
> mega-gigsits of storage surely?
>  :-)

You laugh, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually the same HD, 
just with a different circuit board on the back... ;-)

PS. How many different types of SCSI *are* there, anyway?!? There just 
seems to be an endless zoo of them!

Post a reply to this message