QA meeting - Revision history

amigadave: wikify

2010-07-12T07:53:00Z

wikify

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:53, 12 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~'''~~QA Meeting Agenda~~'''~~	+	==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.
Line 12:		Line 12:
	--[[User:jukey\|jukey]] 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)		--[[User:jukey\|jukey]] 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

-	~~'''~~Meeting details~~'''~~	+	==Meeting details==

	* IRC: irc.freenode.org		* IRC: irc.freenode.org
Line 18:		Line 18:
	* Time: Tuesday, November 10th, 14:30 UTC		* Time: Tuesday, November 10th, 14:30 UTC

-	~~'''~~Agenda~~'''~~	+	===Agenda===

	* QA is good.		* QA is good.
Line 34:		Line 34:
	'''Actionable items'''		'''Actionable items'''

-	1. We recommend lowering acceptable karma from 10 to 5.~~<br>~~	+	# We recommend lowering acceptable karma from 10 to 5.
-	2. Thumbs down requires a comment as well.~~<br>~~	+	# Thumbs down requires a comment as well.
-	3. Testers should follow the checklist closely so it is clear what the testing criteria are. ~~<br>~~	+	# Testers should follow the checklist closely so it is clear what the testing criteria are.
-	4. Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes.~~<br>~~	+	# Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes.
-	5. Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package.~~<br>~~	+	# Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package.
-	6. App authors should be prevented from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list~~<br>~~	+	# App authors should be prevented from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list
-	7. PPAs are bad.~~<br>~~	+	# PPAs are bad.
-	8. 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 ;-)~~<br>~~	+	# 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===

-	~~'''Wishlist'''~~	+	# Approval interface available in Application Manager.
-		+	# User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.
-	1. Approval interface available in Application Manager.~~<br>~~	+
-	2. User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.~~<br>~~	+

	[[Category:Community]]		[[Category:Community]]
	[[Category:Quality Assurance]]		[[Category:Quality Assurance]]

torpedo48 at 08:04, 9 July 2010

2010-07-09T08:04:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:04, 9 July 2010
Line 39:		Line 39:
	4. Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes.<br>		4. Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes.<br>
	5. Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package.<br>		5. Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package.<br>
-	6. App authors should be prevented from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list	+	6. App authors should be prevented from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list<br>
-	7. PPAs are bad.	+	7. PPAs are bad.<br>
-	8. Without an application, libraries do not go through the QA process.	+	8. 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 ;-)<br>
-	tester logs in, reviews app metadata on web, installs via .install, tests and then votes ;-)	+


	'''Wishlist'''		'''Wishlist'''

-	1. Approval interface available in Application Manager.	+	1. Approval interface available in Application Manager.<br>
-	2. User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.	+	2. User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.<br>

	[[Category:Community]]		[[Category:Community]]
	[[Category:Quality Assurance]]		[[Category:Quality Assurance]]

amigadave: IRC link

2010-02-12T14:21:46Z

IRC link

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 12 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''QA Meeting Agenda'''		'''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...'''		'''In the next meeting...'''

amigadave: Category:Community and Category:Quality Assurance

2010-02-11T14:51:47Z

Category:Community and Category:Quality Assurance

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 11 February 2010
Line 49:		Line 49:
	1. Approval interface available in Application Manager.		1. Approval interface available in Application Manager.
	2. User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.		2. User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.
		+
		+	[[Category:Community]]
		+	[[Category:Quality Assurance]]

jukey at 21:07, 11 November 2009

2009-11-11T21:07:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 11 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~#REDIRECT~~ [[~~Bugsquad~~/~~QA_meeting~~]]	+	'''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 [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
		+	* 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'''
		+
		+	1. We recommend lowering acceptable karma from 10 to 5.<br>
		+	2. Thumbs down requires a comment as well.<br>
		+	3. Testers should follow the checklist closely so it is clear what the testing criteria are. <br>
		+	4. Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes.<br>
		+	5. Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package.<br>
		+	6. App authors should be prevented from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list
		+	7. PPAs are bad.
		+	8. 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'''
		+
		+	1. Approval interface available in Application Manager.
		+	2. User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.

jukey: Redirecting to Bugsquad/QA meeting

2009-11-11T19:56:57Z

Redirecting to Bugsquad/QA meeting

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 11 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	#REDIRECT [Bugsquad/QA_meeting]	+	#REDIRECT [[Bugsquad/QA_meeting]]

jukey: Replacing page with '#REDIRECT [Bugsquad/QA_meeting]'

2009-11-11T19:55:19Z

Replacing page with '#REDIRECT [Bugsquad/QA_meeting]'

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 11 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~'''QA Meeting Agenda'''~~	+	#REDIRECT [Bugsquad/QA_meeting]
-		+
-	~~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	+
-	* 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'''~~	+
-		+
-	~~1. We recommend lowering acceptable karma from 10 to 5.<br>~~	+
-	~~2. Thumbs down requires a comment as well.<br>~~	+
-	~~3. Testers should follow the checklist closely so it is clear what the testing criteria are. <br>~~	+
-	~~4. Positive package karma gets preserved for bug fixes, cosmetic changes.<br>~~	+
-	~~5. Allow people to cast more than one vote for a package.<br>~~	+
-	~~6. App authors should be prevented from thumbing up own app and that a maintainer thumbing it down removes it from the QA list~~	+
-	~~7. PPAs are bad.~~	+
-	~~8. 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'''~~	+
-		+
-	~~1. Approval interface available in Application Manager.~~	+
-	~~2. User clicks a series of checkboxes, the app gets promoted automatically.~~	+

jukey at 19:49, 11 November 2009

2009-11-11T19:49:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 11 November 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	**What are alternatives?		**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!		**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)		--[[User:jukey\|jukey]] 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

jukey at 19:18, 11 November 2009

2009-11-11T19:18:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 11 November 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	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!
		+	--[[User:jukey\|jukey]] 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

	'''Meeting details'''		'''Meeting details'''

dneary: QAMeeting moved to QA meeting

2009-11-11T18:34:21Z

QAMeeting moved to QA meeting

← Older revision

Revision as of 18:34, 11 November 2009