QA meeting: Difference between revisions
From Maemo Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
imported>jeremiah No edit summary |
imported>amigadave wikify |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==QA Meeting Agenda== | |||
Please place the things you wish to discuss at the QA meeting on IRC below. | Please place the things you wish to discuss at the QA meeting on [[IRC]] below. | ||
''' | '''In the next meeting...''' | ||
* I want to discuss how to integrate Fennec as 3rd party app into bugs.maemo.org | |||
**Do we need ttis integration? Why bugzilla.mozilla.org is not enough? | |||
**What are alternatives? | |||
**There is already [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526798 an open bug for this issue]. Feel free to add your thoughts! | |||
*How to build a bridge between bugs.maemo.org and [http://maemo.org/packages/repository/qa/fremantle_extras-testing/ the package voting system] | |||
**As somebody fills bug reports normaly only if I found a bug during normal daily use it would be nice to have a link to the application packge to vote for. | |||
--[[User:jukey|jukey]] 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Meeting details== | |||
* IRC: irc.freenode.org | |||
* Channel: #maemo-meeting | * Channel: #maemo-meeting | ||
* Time: Tuesday, November 10th, 14:30 UTC'' | * Time: Tuesday, November 10th, 14:30 UTC | ||
===Agenda=== | |||
* QA is good. | |||
* The criteria are a good start, but need tweaks | |||
* The packages UI needs some streamlining for testers. | |||
* As a tester, a better reminder of the checklist when checking would be good. I also like the ease with which I can give feedback. | |||
* As a developer, I don't *think* I want to be constrained with "release early, release often" when fixing bugs or introducing new small features. | |||
* We need a mechanism to preserve karma or reset it to zero. | |||
* Discuss the possibility of PPAs or personal repositories. | |||
* specific bug report should always be required to block a package from entering Extras. | |||
* Developer's karma and tester's karma should be incorporated so that a "developer with high karma would be able to push packages through the process faster, and a high rolling tester would be able keep bugs open and classified as critical in case of disagreement." | |||
* Bugtracker field should be a blocker ? what about background packages ? | |||
* What to do with CLI apps ? | |||
* Allow people to vote multiple time. | |||
'''Actionable items''' | |||
# We recommend lowering acceptable karma from 10 to 5. | |||
# Thumbs down requires a comment as well. | |||
# Testers should follow the checklist closely so it is clear what the testing criteria are. | |||
# Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes. | |||
# Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package. | |||
# App authors should be *prevented* from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list | |||
# PPAs are bad. | |||
# Without an application, libraries do not go through the QA process. tester logs in, reviews app metadata on web, installs via .install, tests and then votes ;-) | |||
===Wishlist=== | |||
# Approval interface available in Application Manager. | |||
# User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically. | |||
[[Category:Community]] | |||
[[Category:Quality Assurance]] | |||
Latest revision as of 07:53, 12 July 2010
QA Meeting Agenda
Please place the things you wish to discuss at the QA meeting on IRC below.
In the next meeting...
- I want to discuss how to integrate Fennec as 3rd party app into bugs.maemo.org
- Do we need ttis integration? Why bugzilla.mozilla.org is not enough?
- What are alternatives?
- There is already an open bug for this issue. Feel free to add your thoughts!
- How to build a bridge between bugs.maemo.org and the package voting system
- As somebody fills bug reports normaly only if I found a bug during normal daily use it would be nice to have a link to the application packge to vote for.
--jukey 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Meeting details
- IRC: irc.freenode.org
- Channel: #maemo-meeting
- Time: Tuesday, November 10th, 14:30 UTC
Agenda
- QA is good.
- The criteria are a good start, but need tweaks
- The packages UI needs some streamlining for testers.
- As a tester, a better reminder of the checklist when checking would be good. I also like the ease with which I can give feedback.
- As a developer, I don't *think* I want to be constrained with "release early, release often" when fixing bugs or introducing new small features.
- We need a mechanism to preserve karma or reset it to zero.
- Discuss the possibility of PPAs or personal repositories.
- specific bug report should always be required to block a package from entering Extras.
- Developer's karma and tester's karma should be incorporated so that a "developer with high karma would be able to push packages through the process faster, and a high rolling tester would be able keep bugs open and classified as critical in case of disagreement."
- Bugtracker field should be a blocker ? what about background packages ?
- What to do with CLI apps ?
- Allow people to vote multiple time.
Actionable items
- We recommend lowering acceptable karma from 10 to 5.
- Thumbs down requires a comment as well.
- Testers should follow the checklist closely so it is clear what the testing criteria are.
- Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes.
- Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package.
- App authors should be *prevented* from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list
- PPAs are bad.
- Without an application, libraries do not go through the QA process. tester logs in, reviews app metadata on web, installs via .install, tests and then votes ;-)
Wishlist
- Approval interface available in Application Manager.
- User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.
