Hi,
ext Thomas Perl wrote:
2010/7/22 Eero Tamminen eero.tammi...@nokia.com:
[1] For example popular gPodder application is buggy because it
apparently listens to orientation changes when it's not visible and
does e.g. lots of operations when user tries to answer a call.
If you reported a bug
On Tuesday 27 July 2010 17:30:13 Eero Tamminen wrote:
I just bumped in bugs.maemo.org into an issue resulting from
the bg activity by gPodder and some other apps.
Still, what Extras QA, as a crowdsourced effort can do in that regard is rather
limited. The number of people who are able to do
2010/7/22 Eero Tamminen eero.tammi...@nokia.com:
[1] For example popular gPodder application is buggy because it
apparently listens to orientation changes when it's not visible and
does e.g. lots of operations when user tries to answer a call.
If you reported a bug against said app, the
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 13:54:33 Quim Gil wrote:
It's difficult to describe beauty but it's easy to recognize it when you
see it. We can fine tune the ugly corner cases as they come.
Fine-tune case 1. Allow no packages to put data with imagery or sound files in
(non-hidden dirs inside)
On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:53, Attila Csipa wrote:
A few random thoughts, not pushing for anything.
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 10:20:39 Andrew Flegg wrote:
* MUST have bug tracker URL in XSBC-Bugtracker control field.
This is a machine controllable thing, so if it's a MUST, it has
nothing
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 15:23:14 Jeremiah Foster wrote:
Actually, this is not that hard. The license information has to be in
the debian/copyright file. If the package comes from debian, you can
be pretty sure that the license (i.e. the copyright file) is correct.
I was mostly referring
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 16:45:56 Attila Csipa wrote:
proper license/attribution information (for example Qt itself has no
debian/copyright or license files included. Probably not commercial
To make this a bit more precise before someone misunderstands - the binary
package is missing the
* MUST NOT introduce security risks.
I'd rephrase MUST NOT contain known security vulnerabilities and
MUST specify a security vulnerability reporting contact point.
This would take the ambiguity out of a security *risk* (almost nothing
is risk-free). Vulnerabilities, however, are more
On Oct 28, 2009, at 16:45, Attila Csipa wrote:
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 15:23:14 Jeremiah Foster wrote:
Actually, this is not that hard. The license information has to be in
the debian/copyright file. If the package comes from debian, you can
be pretty sure that the license (i.e. the
On Oct 28, 2009, at 19:28, Antti Vähä-Sipilä wrote:
* MUST NOT introduce security risks.
I'd rephrase MUST NOT contain known security vulnerabilities and
MUST specify a security vulnerability reporting contact point.
This makes sense to me.
This would take the ambiguity out of a security
Known is also tricky - known by whom? - but it could suffice, as if
anyone who is actually involved in this QA checking knows, it would
trigger this.
Perhaps a check against the CVE database?
That could be a plus, but many vulnerabilities never get CVE entries
(for various reasons). So
On Wednesday 28 October 2009 18:28:24 Antti Vähä-Sipilä wrote:
* MUST NOT introduce security risks.
I'd rephrase MUST NOT contain known security vulnerabilities and
MUST specify a security vulnerability reporting contact point.
The second requirement is not reasonable. Many small programs,
Hi,
Quim's done a sterling job producing a first draft of the Extras QA
checklist. This is the list of things which need to be checked before
an application should get a thumbs up in the packages UI[1]:
http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist
There are various threads
A few random thoughts, not pushing for anything.
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 10:20:39 Andrew Flegg wrote:
* MUST have bug tracker URL in XSBC-Bugtracker control field.
This is a machine controllable thing, so if it's a MUST, it has nothing to
with QA - it should be part of the
Hi,
+2c from me:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org wrote:
* MUST NOT waste battery life when in background or in normal use.
What about applications that can't control what they are showing and such
that shouldn't be suspended when in background?
Regards:
Bundyo
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:18, Kamen Bundev bun...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Flegg and...@bleb.org wrote:
* MUST NOT waste battery life when in background or in normal use.
What about applications that can't control what they are showing and such
that
Hi,
ext Andrew Flegg wrote:
Hi,
Quim's done a sterling job producing a first draft of the Extras QA
checklist. This is the list of things which need to be checked before
an application should get a thumbs up in the packages UI[1]:
http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:54, Quim Gil quim@nokia.com wrote:
9.08-10 Draft quality guidelines for extras-testing to extras promotion
is DONE and you continue with
9.08-11 Document communicate packages interface to testers
Yup. There is pretty much a week left in this sprint. Hmm. Might
18 matches
Mail list logo
