Hey, So regarding the first thing mentioned. We think that multiple testers and devices can be introduced. So we think things like this are acceptable, for instance:
Yes (#34 krillin sil2100,ogra) or Yes (#34 krillin,mako sil2100) or Yes (#34 krillin sil2100) (#233 mako ogra) - in case 2 different people tested on 2 different devices. As for the second one - it seems fine. As mentioned by Julien anything for this is fine as long as it's easy to access and visible. Cheers! W dniu 12.09.2014 o 20:23, Julien Funk pisze: > As long as the information is easy to attend, it should be fine no? > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Tony Espy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 09/12/2014 01:07 PM, Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone! >>> >>> IMPORTANT! All landers please read on! >>> >>> So, as discussed with QA, we have new requirements regarding what >>> information needs to be provided whenever a silo gets marked as tested >>> by a lander. These new rules will allow QA engineers to have a better >>> understanding how the testing has proceeded and who to contact when in >>> any doubts. >>> >>> We are making some small changes to the information provided about silo >>> testing to make the sign off process smoother and avoid confusion. >>> First, you need to add two small details - the name of the tester and >>> the device used for testing. >>> >> >> In many cases, we have multiple testers and devices involved, so this >> might be "names" of the testers and "devices" ( w/image #s of course ). >> >> Second, it is recommended that you add comments on the testing that was >>> done for your silo in the 'Test plans' field. Note that if you just list >>> a test plan without further comment it will be assumed that *every* test >>> in the test plan was run and passed - so please use the field as an >>> opportunity to note any tests that were not run for whatever reason, or >>> failed because of an existing bug. >>> >> >> How 'bout a short summary in the 'Test Plans' field with maybe a link >> and/or reference to a more detailed testing summary? >> >> Ex. >> >> For test results see: merge proposals x,y, and z. >> >> For a more concrete example, see: >> >> https://code.launchpad.net/~phablet-team/ofono/lp1363413/+merge/233434 >> >> Trying to jam such details into a spreadsheet column feels a bit cramped... >> >> Regards, >> /tony >> >> >>> So, in short, when a silo has been tested by a lander, please switch the >>> 'Testing pass?' field to: >>> Yes (#<image number> <device> <tester>) >>> e.g. >>> Yes (#33 krillin sil2100) >>> >>> Please note that QA will not perform *any* QA sign-off for silos that do >>> not follow the new recommendations. So we kindly ask all landers to >>> apply these new rules ASAP. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > -- Łukasz 'sil2100' Zemczak [email protected] www.canonical.com -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
