On Monday 14 February 2011 03:05:42 Ian Booth wrote: > I've been conflicted about an aspect of our current QA process. Well > there's several things that haven't been sitting quite right with me and > I've since been pointed to bug 297614 which highlights several of the > issues that exist. But there's one thing in particular which occurred > during the last rollout that I think for which we could consider a short > term fix, while the broader, longer term strategy matures.
As already noted, we really do need to move to a QA per-revision system longer-term. As for qa-deployable, can you summarise the problems with using qa-ok? I didn't see any hard issues in your email but then I might have been reading it wrong. You left me tantalisingly close to understanding why when you said: > marking a bug as > qa-ok/fixed when it is not is misrepresenting the true state of the bug > and has obvious downstream implications for process, deployment > readiness and also metrics gathering." but it would be great to enumerate these implications! Cheers J _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
