forstmeier
Joined 9 years ago
Karma
64
Submissions
40
Member since
Jun 11
Recent submissions
Comment · 4 years ago
For manual testing, QA is a separate person/team but I'm recommending the developer observe in real time as they review since they're "shuttling" the change into production. QA should also basically be adding in automated tests for their manual evaluations so yes, I'd have them cycle through the development team.
On #6, yes, I'd say squash merge into single commits so single commits going out would be the enforcement measure. And deploys to production occur immediately on merge to `master` which would be blocked on tests passing with additional pushes to that branch triggering test reruns.
Comment · 4 years ago
I feel like focusing on building revenue should be the focus of pure SaaS founders and then reach out to investors to leverage growth - something that can be done more easily once they've hit "proof of market". That's part of my hypothesis behind Automated Capital.
Comment · 4 years ago
Agreed. A revenue-first approach is the hypothesis I'm testing with Automated Capital.
Comment · 4 years ago
The focus on revenue is definitely a paradigm shift for the current environment. It's part of my hypothesis behind Automated Capital (http://automated.capital/).
Comment · 4 years ago
Could something like Automated Capital, a experimental side project I'm working on, reduce the turnaround for the initial due dilligence?
I'm pro-West, pro-growth, and pro-human.
I can be reached via DM: https://twitter.com/forstmeier