[maemo-developers] QA from extras-devel to extras-testing

[From: Andrew Flegg]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 20:46, Andrew Zabolotny <zap at homelink.ru> wrote:
> From Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:13:33 +0300
> Quim Gil <quim.gil at nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> The question is how to check and enforce them. What can be automated
>> and what can be evaluated via testers feedback.
>
> Since Maemo is a community project, QA could be done by the community
> as well. As I see it, some person (or all developers?) is made part of
> the QA team; then, when a developer uploads a package to the
> autobuilder and he thinks it's ready for extras it marks the package
> somehow as ready (instead of pushing it directly, like now).

This fits quite well with my suggestion back in January 2008:

    http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail//maemo-developers/2008-January/013889.html

> Then the QA team members can look somehow at the list of "ready"
> packages and test any of them. After they test a package, they may
> "vote" somehow their opinion (with a optional field where they can go
> into details what they like/didn't). If package gets at least one
> negative vote, it's out of the queue for extras. If package gets, say,
> 10 positive votes (the number is to be determined experimentally), it's
> automatically moved to extras.

My suggestion was simpler than that - gatekeepers are volunteers, and
their word is final: one gatekeeper alone can promote the package to
extras (ignore all the bits about building - not so relevant now with
the autobuilder & the recent changes).

So, a revamped proposal could include gatekeepers being able to say
whether it needs further testing (goes into -testing and then needs
more votes) or whether it's suitable to go straight into Extras.

I admit I haven't given the current context a lot of thought with
regards to my original RFC, but thought it worth rehighlighting to get
it into the debate.

Cheers,

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org  |  http://www.bleb.org/
Maemo Community Council chair