The Inevitable March of a Bad Release to QA
Description
A six-panel comic strip featuring two dung beetles on a sandy terrain. In the first panel, one beetle is rolling a large ball of dung while the other asks in Russian, 'Куда ты катишь этот релиз?' ('Where are you rolling this release?'). The rolling beetle replies, 'На тестирование' ('To testing'). Panels two and four are silent, showing the beetle continuing its task. In the third panel, the second beetle exclaims, 'Это же кусок говна!!!' ('But this is a piece of shit!!!'). In the fifth panel, the first beetle states with resignation, 'Все равно - надо протестировать' ('Doesn't matter - it has to be tested'). The final panel shows the second, protesting beetle having given in and now helping the first one roll the dung ball. This comic is a metaphor for the software development lifecycle, where a developer is knowingly pushing a low-quality, buggy release (the 'piece of shit' dung ball) to the QA team. It satirizes the corporate or project management pressure that often forces developers to submit subpar work to 'follow the process,' a scenario deeply familiar to experienced engineers who have had to test or deploy code they knew was fundamentally flawed
Comments
8Comment deleted
The first beetle is just following the agile process. The second beetle represents the senior dev who's seen this story before. He knows that in the end, they'll both be pushing it, and the Jira ticket will be marked 'Done'
Our CI/CD will proudly ship a “green build” with 95 % coverage, but once it hits QA it’s still two dung beetles rolling the same release candidate uphill
After 20 years in this industry, I've finally found the perfect metaphor: we're all just dung beetles pushing someone else's technical debt uphill, insisting it needs proper testing before we can officially call it production-ready shit
QA's job was never to certify it's good - only to document, with reproducible steps, exactly which kind of shit it is
This perfectly encapsulates the QA engineer's eternal dilemma: you know the release is fundamentally flawed before you even start, but professional integrity demands you document every single way it fails anyway. It's not about whether the dung ball will make it to the top - it's about creating a comprehensive test report explaining exactly why it rolled back down, complete with reproduction steps, severity classifications, and screenshots. Because when production inevitably catches fire, at least you'll have a paper trail showing you tried to warn them
Enterprise closers spotting indie MRR compounding via DTC: 'Step on that retail ball before it proves volume trumps one vendor-locked turd of a deal.'
Rolling release: PM calls it MVP, QA calls it a turd, and Dev sends it to staging for a smoke test - pretty sure this one needs a smell test
Call it a rolling release: RC0 gets literally rolled to QA because our only quality gate is 'QA will find it.'