This has been your third post in continuation to the the long and scattered discussions about BVA over various blogs and corresponding comments, mainly invloving you, Pradeep and Shrini. That has been really an interesting reading. It was especialy good to see you take back your words (which you thought were a bit rude for Pradeep) and then take back the situation based on nothing but logic.

I am impressed. You have discussed the subject in detail. I did not know anything about MP3 encoding and decoding, your posts made me know and grasp some details.

What matters to me the most is that all this has clarified certain base concepts, which are generic and are deeply associated to the profession of software testing.

I have especially liked your note on the “lessons” in the current post. With all your permission, I would like to refer this and some other content in your posts (ofcourse with links ponting to them), so that more and more people get to know this piece of knowlede.

Frankly speaking, you, Pradeep and Shrini are talking about the same subject and have almost the same notion. All of you say that BVA is not a dumb job. It requires analysis. All of you say that the boundaries are not fixed. I found that you have contradictions, but not many. Most of the times, it was not about way that you all think about BVA, it was all about the language you used while talking about BVA – just a game of words.

The above paragraph is just to end a hidden clash between three testing experts whom I like. I believe that all the discussion on BVA could have been done in a much healthier manner. Sometimes, it puts the readers in a bit embarassing situation, because I am sure that we like you all for your knowledge.

I hope all my words are taken in a positive way.

Regards,

Rahul Verma.

Monday, April 23, 2007 6:10 AM by Rahul Verma