[maemo-developers] QA Proposals (was Re: Quality assurance of "stable" software: my battery drained in few hours)

[From: Sivan Greenberg]

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:20 PM, David Greaves <david at dgreaves.com> wrote:
> Hi Sivan
>
> Just checking :
>>
>> [0]: http://wiki.meego.com/Proposal_for_a_Quality_Assurance_working_group
>
> and
>>
>> maemo-developers mailing list
>
> So we should really take (or at least cc) the QAWG to meego-dev (but see
> later)

Agreed. I was sure I was cc'ing meego-dev, but I responded while busy
with a load of other things so this slipped me.

>
> However could you look at:
>  http://wiki.meego.com/Proposal_for_a_Repository_working_group
> Having spent quite a lot of time pushing for *something* to be done in this
> area I'd like to suggest that the successor to the RWG encompases this kind
> of QA activity.

I will, many thanks for re-pointing at it. I was not aware it would be
so relevant to this subject, as I got the impression this is very much
related to app development and not the core, but if we have access to
the core packages that setup the very base system (minus the kernel,
I'm not a kernel dev and not claiming to be) that this is probably
where it belongs.

>
> Personally, I'd also suggest that you forget about Working Groups.... the
> powers that be don't seem interested in setting up WGs for much other than
> product direction at the moment; certainly they won't (AFAIUI) set one up
> for just QA; it would be expected to fall under a larger umbrella. See the
> various TSG logs for the past few months for my (lbt) attempts and more
> useful URLs.

Will do. What would be the larger umbrella ? (-for the impatient ;))

>
> Of course there's also the "Meeting call for Community application support"
> that you responded to on the -community ml. Lets follow up in that meeting.

Are you referring to the next TSG meeting?

>
> Right... now the "see later":
>
> I actually don't think there's much point in doing MeeGo QA policy right now
> anyway; I think we'd be *far* better off working on Maemo QA for Fremantle
> ... and Harmattan.
> We have an established community and real devices to work with.

Is there a policy in place for Maemo?

>
> We're also working on moving the build and QA infrastructure in Maemo
> towards the same basic shape that I think we'll see in MeeGo (ie an OBS
> driven approach). FYI I'm also working on workflow automation and
> integration with image and test systems internally for Nokia and we expect
> those solutions to be OSS and deployed on maemo.org meego.com(munity)

Great. What is the prospect of wiring those systems with system-wide
integrative tests?

>
> So if we work on a decent solution for Maemo and ensure it's suitable for
> MeeGo then we solve a lot of real-world issues.

Is there anyting out there to work on? How can we make it suitable for
MeeGo if there are not real devices out there yet? You just mentioned
those "internal" stuff , which would be released as OSS , but then
wouldn't things be more set in stone? How can I now influence or
contribute as a non technical user to that QA process?

Important note: I'm not bashing, just sincerely interested in the true
state of things and try to see where we can improve. Given all the QA
Maemo had been given so far (which I admit I have no detailed
knowledge of) the OS and device combination is till something very
much for the tech savy and hackers and rough on the edges. As a sad
personal example for me, in Israel no operator would sell N900, but
*all of them* carry iPhones in its multitude of versions and makes.

Sivan