And you're lucky if you get votes ! I can imagine nobody cares about pwsafe (except 2 people) but does that mean that if you get no vote in extras-testing you'd better forget about your app and start something new ?
I know you can't force people to vote or test ... But it means that if an app has a very limited public it doesn't get out of extras-testing ? Fred Henrik Hedberg a écrit : > Extras-testing QA is not working as it is implemented now! There are > two main issues: > > * Comments are stored into a wrong place. Those belong to Bugzilla! It > is double effort for a developer to track two different places or to > transfer reports into bug tracking system manually. > > * Developers are giving karma based on their subjective thinking instead > of agreed (?) QA requirements. > > Let's analyse karma and comments that Mauku has got: > > * Two testers of five either add a new bug report or search the existing > bug reports before entering a comment. Good for those two, bad for the rest. > > * Negative karma given at 2009-09-24 04:52 UTC and related comment > written at 2009-09-24 04:55 UTC. Is there any real reason to give > negative karma based on the comment? Tester either wants some new > features (definitely not based on QA requirements) or some minor user > interface modifications (not a show stopper). > > * All testers report at least one issue that is not actually related to > the application itself but the underlying library. I understand that it > is hard for end-user to see the difference, but what happens when the > library is updated? These issues are fixed, and so is the application > also, but the negative karma stays there. > > My suggestion here is that: > > * Negative karma can be given _only_ if it based on the agreed QA > requirements. > > * The package page should have a link to a bug tracker. > > * Negative karma can be given _only_ with a link to a bug tracker having > a bug report about the show stopper. It may be either a new bug report > written by the tester or an old open bug report just referred in the > comment. > > * Negative karma is automatically removed when the related bug report is > closed (fixed or other way resolved). > > Graham Cobb wrote: > >> Testers should be testing against the agreed >> requirements only. The subjective element should be eliminated as >> much as possible - we are using human testers because it is >> impossible to do this testing manually, not because we expect >> different opinions. We are using more than one tester just so that a >> problem doesn't slip through because one tester missed it, not >> because we expect voting. > > I strongly agree! > >> By all means add a comment if you are unhappy with the UI but it >> should get a +1 as long as it doesn't conflict with the requirements. >> Ideally every -1 should require a comment saying which of the QA >> requirements is violated. > > I strongly agree. Actually, I would remove the word "ideally". It is > a must! And with the relationship to bug tracker I described above. > > BR, > > Henrik > _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
