On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Mel Chua <[email protected]> wrote: > Seconded, as we are all volunteers an asynchronous model might make most >> sense. Especially when there is little time to do things one has to be >> organized well and the teams must have a process they can follow and be >> sure others get to the results. >> > > Yep. One thing I think might be helpful is making the weekly > test/development cycle more explicit - sounds like we already have one (we > have weekly dev meetings, there are weekly QA meetings in Welly) but I'm not > exactly clear on the timing of the two, or when each group is reporting > results back and forth to each other. >
Just to update everyone on NZ's progress.. we now have two testing groups meeting weekly: one in Auckland (led by Tabitha), one in Wellington (led by a small consortium/tbc/is that important?) & another small cadre in Christchurch. We meet every Saturday our time, which is late Friday afternoon in the USA or about midnight Friday in Europe. > > So being able to say "at each week's development meeting, we'll look at > <list>, and email <this stuff!> to the testing list", and vice versa for > each week's QA meeting, may be useful for getting us into a rhythm. I don't think anyone from here (NZL) will ever be able to regularly attend any of the Sugar/OLPC weekly meetings. They're generally on around 1300-1500 UTC, which is roughly 1am - 3am here.. > I would love there to be one webpage for test requests that has some >>> visual indicator of how many people testing it and how close to >>> finished testing it is, with a big tick next to it when it has been >>> tested thoroughly. >>> >> Yes, that sounds very good indeed. I guess we do not have any >> infrastructure for the working scenario you describe (yet)? >> > > Not that I know of - though I'd love this as well. I'm setting up a > Semantic MediaWiki test case system similar to the one we had at OLPC, just > to have something to get started on. No firm date on when that's going to be > completed, though I'm going to be tackling getting that infrastructure up > this coming Friday. > > I'm against bespoke development in this area, unless the alternatives are untenable. I would prefer if we evaluate some of the current UAT testing tools - if they're unsuitable for our needs, then building something ourselves makes sense. > > I know Mel wanted to do QA for her upcoming pilot and was involved in >> the QA efforts at olpc. Mel, do you have any thoughts about testing >> tools that allows what Tabitha describes? Testlink [1] was mentioned >> already, for example. >> > Not off the top of my head... general consensus of the past year or so > asking QA folks about FOSS testing platforms is "there aren't any *really* > good ones, FOSS or non-FOSS." Something we should keep pushing on, though. > > My questions: > > 1. Where's the mailing list for Sugar Labs testing (on any platform - XO, > SoaS, other)? (I'm guessing [email protected] - that's fine, we > should let everyone know that's the canonical location.) > > I think most testing discussion happens on the sugar devel list. Don't know if there is a specific Sugarlabs testing list. In keeping with my message to coordinate things between OLPC/Sugarlabs/Activity developers - I promote huddling around the [email protected]. > 2. What's the weekly report that SL dev will give testing (and testing > wants/needs to get from dev)? (Someone on the devel list should have the > responsibility of pinging the testing list once a week to relay this over.) > When will this be sent? > I don't know if there is a weekly report.. this might generate quite a lot of admin overhead. > 3. What's the weekly report that SL testing will give dev (and dev > wants/needs to get from testing)? (Someone on the testing list should have > the responsibility of pinging the devel list once a week to relay this > over.) When will this be sent? > > Since testing is often more than Sugar, I don't know if this could be achieved. I support each group/individual reporting back once she or they have something to report. Once we have a more formal structure established, then we can consolodate on email traffic. > 4. Is everyone hanging out in #sugar as they have questions on Sugar QA? If > not, how do we get them there? > I've found #sugar to be pretty unresponsive when I'm active, because few other people are. Planning around an asynchronous model was suggested earlier in the thread. > Basically, I'm trying to figure out the rhythm and the back-and-forth we > already have - because we do already have it - so we can use it more > effectively. > > --Mel
_______________________________________________ Testing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/testing
