On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:24:12AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > 1. Will sugar-0.90 be better if it gets more and more serious testing > between now and its release?
Better than it otherwise would be, yes. In terms of quantity of latent defects on release. We'd also have a better idea of the defects it is released with that won't be fixed before release. > 2. Might we get more meaningful testing done if we all agreed to > agree, on a roughly weekly basis, on *what to test* -- that is, on a > "sugar HEAD"? Yes, the testing would be more meaningful if it was anchored to some version concept, even if it was a hash. What this begins to sound like is rapid releasing during development. 0.89.n this week, 0.89.n+1 next week. > 3. Might we get more comprehensive test results if "sugar HEAD" were > directly testable against the real software in use on all platforms of > interest? [2] Yes, test results would be more comprehensive. > 4. Would you like to participate in a roughly-weekly social event > designed to accomplish these goals? (That is, for example, in a weekly > Sugar Labs "Friends in Testing"-style exploratory testing > opportunity?) Yes, subject to timezone considerations. ;-} -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Testing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/testing
