I realize just blindly taking QA's test as a proxy is not actual doing anything but what if you are actually sitting down with a QA engineer, and executing the same steps with them albeit doing it on the same setup to save time? Would that not count?
The second question is if the QA engineer has verified the build before the vote, would he/she need to redo the exact same steps afterwards to vote? If the answer to this is "Yes", then I suppose my first claim is useless. Sorry if I am asking these questions but I wasn't sure how this voting process goes because I can assure you I've spent huge amounts of time QA/testing the build with the QA engineers and sometimes do not have the time to do them again. However, if the vote cast is about individuals doing it themselves after the vote cast, I can abstain from voting and simply just comment for the QA. Will ________________________________________ From: Noah Slater [nsla...@tumbolia.org] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:40 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.0.0-incubating Release, first round On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Will Chan <will.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > Go ahead with the recast of votes then if you don't want QA to re-test. > My binding vote is based on Citrix QA test. > It is wise to consider the QA testing, but your vote must be based on your testing of the artefact itself. When you vote, you are voting as an individual. It is your personal mark of "I have downloaded this artefact and I have verified that we should release this personally." Please do not rely on other people's testing as a proxy for your vote. All that does is add noise. If we want the QA team's efforts to impact our vote (of course we do) then the QA team should vote. (And I am not suggesting they run the full battery of tests. Just that they use their experience to verify the release candidate like everyone else.) We don't need people voting +1 to signal that they are pleased with the QA team results. -- NS
