User talk:Epim~enwiki

Ad hoc testing

No my information can't be merged with what you wrote since they are divergent ideas on the term. Please don't try. --Walter Görlitz 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think our views are similar. I agree with all you wrote, I only think that some parts belong to the exploratory testing article. The difference is that I think that ad hoc testing is a subset of exploratory testing, while you think they are the same. The concept of exploratory testing has grown the last 15 years, so even if the terms were very similar some time ago, they aren't now. The referenced article "Ad Hoc Software Testing" covers this well. I think that the 2 articles on Wikipedia should be different and complementary. Epim 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I think that ad hoc and exploratory testing are the same thing, rather the context sensitive school state that they are the same thing. --Walter Görlitz 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Context-Driven School of Testing coined the term exploratory testing, and they derived some key concepts from what used to be called ad hoc testing.

They do not state that the terms are synonyms.

There is one sentence in Bachs article that could be misunderstood in this way: "Exploratory testing is also known as ad hoc testing." The referenced article "Ad Hoc Software Testing" was presented at a forum with several members of the Context-Driven School, so that paper should cover their opinion well. Epim 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. Read any article by one of the context sensitive school. StickyMinds has many. They flow between using the term ad hoc and exploratory testing. To them, they are the same thing. It's not that the Bach article could be misunderstood that way, it should be understood that. Exploratory testing is as ad hoc testing to that school only. --Walter Görlitz 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Epim, when you read James Bach and Cem Kaner's PDF on exploratory testing, it is abundantly clear that exploratory testing is spread acros a spectrum ranging from less Exploratory ("pure scripted") to Purely exploratory or "freestyle exploratory". The latter is what you appear to be implying by ad hoc (testing with no previous planning or strategy). Please see p.14 of James Bach and Cem Kaners "Exploratory & Risk Based Testing(2004) www.testingeducation.org" located at

  http://www.testingeducation.org/a/nature.pdf.

I think that it will seal the discussion unless you have a different definition of "ad hoc testing". If so you should define it at the onset or on the other page since it is certainly not a consensus view, especially if it goes against Bach and Kaner. Almost all of my testing is Exploratory and almost none of it is ad hoc. For those in stickyminds switching between ad hoc and exploratory could be the same as switching between using apple and fruit. They are using the words differently but you are "hearing" them as the same. See The Whorfian Hypothesis article by Lee Coplend in stickyminds. http://www.stickyminds.com/s.asp?F=S12401_MAGAZINE_2 (June 2007 edition) for a great article on distinguishing the subleties between different terms, especially in this context since he notes, "If you read 'testing' as something different from 'exploratory testing' as something different from 'session based exploratory testing,' note that it is a distinction that might be useful in your organization. Useful new concepts may be hiding within those words. Invest some time in increasing your organizational word power. It will be worth the effort."

Ad hoc testing is generally exploratory (perhaps always depending on your definition), but not all exploratory testing is ad hoc. Much of it is planned up to a point. If you are saying the same applies to ad hoc testing then please spell that out, since the difference is frequently misunderstood by developers and those not familiar with testing. I would be very happy to provide several other specific examples if necessary to display the concept. (IQDave) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IQDave (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Epim. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Epim~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

12:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)