On Tuesday 09 March 2010 08:27:34 Tim Teulings wrote:
> I think initialy (and hopefully still) extras was not about good or bad
> software, its was about software that does not break your device (and
> does what it told). That is what QA must try to target. Comments about
> usability, spelling mist
Hello!
Sorry ? I don't follow. We don't have the luxury of natural selection and wait
for applications to actually cause damage to crystallize a score on a web page
(which is BTW not even visible from the Application manager). I do believe
that Extras as default was given the green light by Noki
On Monday 08 March 2010 21:51:09 Graham Cobb wrote:
> This was the decision made, by the community, when the Extras-Testing
> process was set up. It was for a very short list of requirements which
> were to provide safety and was, explicitly, not a QA process. If some
> people wish to change that
On Monday 08 March 2010 19:17:38 Attila Csipa wrote:
> On Monday 08 March 2010 18:43:02 Graham Cobb wrote:
> > I strongly disagree. The Extras-Testing process should be about safety:
> > someone browsing extras should be comfortable that if they look at an app
> > they can get a reasonable descrip
On Monday 08 March 2010 18:43:02 Graham Cobb wrote:
> Anyway, let's leave the screenshots issue for a separate discussion!
Separated
> > On a side note I would make screenshots (where applicable) also mandatory
> > for promotion to -testing, on the same grounds as a bugtracker, but the
> > ideas/
