Extras-testing QA Checklist and Quarantine Period - Page 7 - maemo.org

Texrat | # 61 | 2010-01-21, 01:22 | Report

Originally Posted by chemist View Post

Please stay on topic.

A minor deviation now and then doesn't kill the discussion, chemist. In fact it can help recharge one that stalls.

The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
Sasler

Sasler | # 62 | 2010-01-21, 10:02 | Report

I've been thinking about this single Gatekeeper thing. I don't think one is enough. The amount of apps/updates coming out already now is fairly considerable and it will only increase. In my opinion, this would be a too big load for just one Gatekeeper.

What I propose instead, would be several Gatekeepers who would have the keys to the Extras kingdom. Each of them would have the power to allow or reject the app/update. The testers would only make recommendations based on their testing. This would eliminate the need for rigid quarantine time.

Also a Gatekeeper could communicate with the devs with the app comments. Something like this:

Originally Posted by

Please correct the typo in the Settings button. After that it will be promoted to Extras.

Originally Posted by

Currently pressing the Edit button does nothing. Either remove the button or add the edit features. If you simply remove the button a simply test is need to see that everything works fine before promotion. But if you add the edit feature, some further testing is needed.

Then the dev could inform the testers via the app comment what he has done, so the tester would know what they should test.

The Following User Says Thank You to Sasler For This Useful Post:
Texrat

attila77 | # 63 | 2010-01-21, 22:46 | Report

A bit late to the party but... we're rehashing ideas now, we should get to an action phase. I have myself suggested over a month ago a similar idea (just called it QAmaster instead of Gatekeeper), and even started knocking on some doors with the idea, to a mixed response. Here's a snipped of a further letter of mine on the topic:

Originally Posted by

The bottom line is that testing is IMO not working out, de facto becoming a bottleneck - and not only in terms of QA, but procedural difficulties. We have well over 100 packages in testing and there is no tendency of testing getting a better throughput, and there is almost no real solution for libraries. I would wish some council support on it (I would hate people see this as another community member self-initiatedly bossing them around). Of course I don't think *I* have to be that guy (Valerio headed some excellent QA oriented efforts), we might even have a team of QA 'moderators'.

In the end, it's important to have a solid support on this from the powers that be - qamastering (or gatekeeping, doesn't matter how you call it) is not a trivial task, and, as essentially a position of power, has the potential to rub some people the wrong way. If we (as in community) can reach a conclusion to accept such member position(s), the exact workflow, number of people, etc, can be worked out on sprints. If there is no support for a position of such role and authority, all the workflow discussions are not worth much.

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post:
frals, qole, Sasler, sjgadsby, Texrat, VDVsx

qole | # 64 | 2010-01-21, 23:37 | Report

I think the council is behind getting this done.

It is pretty clear to me that everyone is clamoring for more apps on the N900, and if every change in a program requires at least 10 days to implement (and much much longer if a bug is found during the -testing phase), it can take months to get apps into Extras.

I've been told that the problem is that the people who actually do this stuff (the paid staff) are totally swamped with infrastructure problems at the moment. There's no spare capacity for making these kinds of changes. But it is definitely something to put on next month's sprint.

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to qole For This Useful Post:
attila77, frals, RevdKathy, Sasler, sjgadsby, Texrat, VDVsx

Sasler | # 65 | 2010-01-22, 05:55 | Report

Well, can't we have a simple poll? QAmaster/Gatekeeprer: yes or no?

Jaffa | # 66 | 2010-01-22, 10:33 | Report

Originally Posted by qole View Post

I've been told that the problem is that the people who actually do this stuff (the paid staff) are totally swamped with infrastructure problems at the moment. There's no spare capacity for making these kinds of changes. But it is definitely something to put on next month's sprint.

And as long as people talk to X-Fade about how to implement it, there's no reason it has to be done by a paid contributor. See the source-code link here:

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...6&postcount=16

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
sjgadsby, Texrat

Jaffa | # 67 | 2010-01-22, 10:43 | Report

Originally Posted by Sasler View Post

Well, can't we have a simple poll? QAmaster/Gatekeeprer: yes or no?

That sounds like a poor idea: polls are self-selecting, people aren't well communicated to, they're easy to manipulate, and it suggests that the majority are as wise as the experts.

We have representatives and stakeholders for a reason :-)

Sasler | # 68 | 2010-01-22, 11:27 | Report

Originally Posted by Jaffa View Post

That sounds like a poor idea: polls are self-selecting, people aren't well communicated to, they're easy to manipulate, and it suggests that the majority are as wise as the experts.

We have representatives and stakeholders for a reason :-)

Well, could my representative, whoever he/she is, make a move and vote for this change then?

I understand that there are more pressing issues currently. But a decision about this issue could be made and then inform about the outcome to us poorly informed and easily manipulated peasants of the maemo.org realm. This way we could go on ploughing and sowing code for new apps, while having this inner feeling of tranquillity resulting from knowing that our benevolent feudal lords are aware of our blight and have taken steps to alleviate our suffering.

VDVsx | # 69 | 2010-01-22, 12:04 | Report

Originally Posted by Sasler View Post

Well, can't we have a simple poll? QAmaster/Gatekeeprer: yes or no?

Our proposal is a team of testers(Testing squad

), no only one Gatekeeper, some of the members of the team will have special powers, that should be only used in very special situations.

More on that very soon, I only have to check a few more things before proceed.

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to VDVsx For This Useful Post:
attila77, Jaffa, qole, RevdKathy, Sasler, sjgadsby, Texrat

slender | # 70 | 2010-03-10, 21:42 | Report

Just couple of short questions. Where is it advised that developers should/could make "[Announce]" topic to talk>application area? Could not find from wiki or have I just failed in reading. Actually it could be quite hard to get 10 votes without making announce to talk area.

That just came to my mind after noticing new version of Battery-Eye in extras-testing and going garage page and just thinking that why would I use that forum there to talk to developer? Feature requests and bugs yeah but so called general talking. Yes i know that there is forum also but for me it just feels bit weird. Too many places..makes me dizzy.

.edit
Oh maybe this was wrong topic?

Last edited by slender; 2010-03-10 at 21:45.