Hi there, This looks a great step to get volunteers. To send a mail to the CWS owner would be a better option according to me and furhter I would be interested to do QA for the CWS which are ready to QA.
I work for Novell. I do QA for OpenOffice and do some triaging of upstream bugs in my free time. As part of my work I mostly concentrate on Writer and Impress. Hoping to be able to contribute in some small way atleast :). Thanks and Regards, -- Nagashree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/12/05 18:55 PM >>> Hi, I've not be active on this list yet, but rather (sparingly) on the tools.dev or dev list, as I am normally more concerned with tooling and release engineering issues. But the following is a proposal for a change in the EIS (Environment Information System, http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/servlet/GuestLogon) tool where the intention is to get testers better involved in the process. So I'll post it here instead of the tools.dev lists: Using the EIS application, a developer can add data such as a description, members etc. for a Child Workspace (CWS) he created. Currently one of the mandatory fields is the "QA Representative" (QA rep.) field which denotes who will be the person doing the QA for the CWS. This works fine if a team of developers and testers work closely together, where a phone call to the testing department solves your problem, but as I heard it has some weaknesses when a developer, who is located somewhere in the world, wants to start working on a task but has no idea who could be a volunteer to test his changes. To make finding a QA rep. in such cases easier we could implement the following changes to the EIS application: - The QA rep. field is no longer mandatory - If left open when the rest of the data is filled, then a missing QA rep. means that the CWS owner is still looking for a tester - All such CWSs without a QA rep. assigned can at some place in the application be seen as a list - Volunteers for testing could take a look at this list and the CWSs described there. A link which opens the local email client with a prepared mail that goes to the CWS owner informs the owner of a volunteer QA rep. [Alternatively one could think about the volunteer automatically registering as QA rep. in the CWS, but I think the owner should be the final instance for changes to the CWS data.] The questions I have is: - Would you use this feature and check the list of CWSs without QA rep. and volunteer to do CWS testing? - Is there a better way to solve the problem? - What about the last item above, am I right to say an email to the CWS owner is the best way? Or would it be better to have the volunteer automatically register as QA rep.? Thanks, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
