[maemo-developers] Extras-testing improvements

[From: Riku Voipio]

On 03/09/2010 01:04 AM, ext Attila Csipa wrote:
> I hope Valerio won't mind me taking the initiative here, but I'd like once
> again to underline the testing-squad is not the Spanish Inquisiton nor do we
> adhere to a dogma which makes testing procedures unchangeable (and we
> certainly don't want to create/impose them without a general consent). Many of
> the problems brought up have been met before, are already known and have
> been/are being worked on to make Extras-testing as painless as possible (and
> yes, I also personally have several packages in Extras-testing that make me
> curse at some of the current rules, so I know both sides of this occasionally
> painful story :). I invite everyone who has not alredy done so to take a good
> look at

> http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist/QA_Improvements

 From what I see, the problem is mostly that there is not enough 
voters.. Well, there are probably lots of more people who add 
extras-testing and even extras-devel to their devices and test random 
applications from there, but can't bother to vote the maemo.org website. 
I can see several reasons for this.

1) extras-testing voting is well hidden in maze of the website
2) Once you find the place, you get an ugly list (especially if viewed 
with n900):
http://maemo.org/packages/repository/qa/fremantle_extras-testing/
There is no correlation with packages you have actually installed on 
your n900, so you need to browse around to actually find what to vote for.
3) the website kicks you out randomly

etc. no wonder we don't get many testers..

If we want to insist on quality on 3rd party applications, we should 
start by having good UX design and QA on the maemo.org website too...

But I think perhaps the website is the wrong place anyway. a 
"extras-testing-assistant" application in extras that allows you to 
add/remove
extras-testing to application manager, shows a list of packages 
installed from extras-testing and gives you a chance to thumb up/down.

Oh, And I also suggest cutting down the requirement for _upgrades_. For 
upgrade, the test checklist should be:

[ ] No regressions observed (everything that worked on previous version 
still works)
[ ] New functionality/bugfixes work as advertised

And cut down the delay to 5 days with 5 votes.