[Testingsquad-list] Testing/QA refresh

Iván Gálvez Junquera ivgalvez at gmail.com
Mon Mar 26 13:19:07 EEST 2012


Ok Rob, thanks.

2012/3/26 robert bauer <nybauer at gmail.com>

> Hi,
>
> You, demolition and ammyt should have supertester permissions now (except
> for vi_ since I couldn't find his garage account).
>
> Rob
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Iván Gálvez Junquera <ivgalvez at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I meant that even if you are able to grant tester permissions to me and
>> more people without the administrator's help, we won't be able to promote
>> packages that have already fulfil the criteria and are stacked in testing
>> because their original maintainers are missing.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/24 robert bauer <nybauer at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Is there any reason we can't test the packages that still have a
>>> maintainer?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Iván Gálvez Junquera <
>>> ivgalvez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you, but even though, how could we promote packages
>>>> without their original maintainer pushing them?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/3/16 robert bauer <nybauer at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Niels, Henri,
>>>>> Can you please reply?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ivan,
>>>>> I'll add the new supertesters if I can.  It seems that testing refocus
>>>>> should start now.  Will have to work out change in package promotion rules
>>>>> in the future since it seems Niels doesn't want to bother with maemo
>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, robert bauer <nybauer at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is just support at nemein.com.  Unfortunately, delay is not
>>>>>> unusual these days - all you can do is wait.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Iván Gálvez Junquera <
>>>>>> ivgalvez at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we haven't receive any answer from Henri or Niels, it would be
>>>>>>> probably not possible to arrange the IRC meeting  today. We can try next
>>>>>>> week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rob, do you know any other contact for Maemo.org administration
>>>>>>> tasks?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/3/6 Iván Gálvez Junquera <ivgalvez at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, I obviously confused the terms as the QA list of packages at
>>>>>>>> Maemo.org shows votes indicating the voter as "Tester" instead of
>>>>>>>> "Supertester". In fact all the TMO discussion we already had, considered
>>>>>>>> that Supertester would be a different role than Tester. You can see the
>>>>>>>> discussion in this thread<http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=82374>
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correcting my previous email:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Rationale:*
>>>>>>>> Lack of testers and maintainers for applications have derived in a
>>>>>>>> lot of applications getting stuck at Extras Testing  even if they are
>>>>>>>> suitable for promotion.
>>>>>>>> We have even reach a situation in which most applications are not
>>>>>>>> even promoted by their developers to Testing (from Devel) due to the
>>>>>>>> difficulty to promote to Extras. The whole promotion system is perceived as
>>>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Solution:*
>>>>>>>> Considering that Maemo community is shrinking, we cannot continue
>>>>>>>> with the actual process. We need to both fix some issues in the whole
>>>>>>>> process of promotion and also grant more administrative privileges to
>>>>>>>> Supertesters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *New members proposed as Supertesters:*
>>>>>>>> These people have been suggested to become new Supertesters:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Demolition
>>>>>>>> vi_
>>>>>>>> ammyt
>>>>>>>> ivgalvez
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please any one else interested in become a new Superster send an
>>>>>>>> email to this mailing list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Proposed changes for the promotion process:*
>>>>>>>> This should be the easiest part of the changes that we are
>>>>>>>> proposing.
>>>>>>>> - Promotion of applications from Testing to Extras should be
>>>>>>>> automatic once the requirements are fulfilled. No need of maintainer to
>>>>>>>> actively promoting the application.
>>>>>>>> This will allow orphaned applications to be promoted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Only one Supertester vote, enough to promote an application.
>>>>>>>> - Five User votes, enough to promote an application.
>>>>>>>> We are running out of man power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All other criteria could be maintained as they are now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Proposed new permissions/abilities for Supertesters:
>>>>>>>> - Add a new developer to maintainer list of any package.
>>>>>>>> - Delete a package from the repository.
>>>>>>>> - Edit bugtracker link.
>>>>>>>> - Ability to promote a package not only from Testing to Extras but
>>>>>>>> also from Devel to Testing.
>>>>>>>> - Ability to downgrade a package from Extras to Testing, and even
>>>>>>>> to Devel.
>>>>>>>> - Ability to prevent automatic promotion of a package from Testing
>>>>>>>> to Extras (to avoid popular but potentially dangerous app to be promoted
>>>>>>>> automatically if reached the number of user votes needed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we should try to keep IRC conversation on how to achieve those
>>>>>>>> points (already discussed at TMO).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please Henri and Niels, can you provide any preference on when to
>>>>>>>> have that meeting?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/3/6 Andrew Flegg <andrew at bleb.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/3/6 Iván Gálvez Junquera <ivgalvez at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > If creating a new role (Supertesters) could be problematic from
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> > administration point of view, I think we can simply grant more
>>>>>>>>> abilities to
>>>>>>>>> > already existing Testers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Supertesters already exist. I think you need to be careful not to
>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>> like the current process is misunderstood when proposing changes
>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > - Only one Tester vote, enough to promote an application.
>>>>>>>>> > - Five User votes, enough to promote an application.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there a current role of "tester"? AIUI, there are two roles:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  * Logged in user
>>>>>>>>>  * Supertester
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "Testing Squad" and "testers" are just people, self-organising
>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>> this list, which commit to test multiple applications; even ones
>>>>>>>>> they're not usually interested in. They fit into the first role.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Supertesters" were introduced to deal with a bottleneck or
>>>>>>>>> stalemate
>>>>>>>>> to help get things over the hurdle which were somewhat niche and
>>>>>>>>> needed more testing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would probably also be worth shining more light on this topic
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> linking up with the apps.formeego.org QA process so that similar
>>>>>>>>> missteps can be avoided for Harmattan apps. Fortunately, bergie &
>>>>>>>>> X-Fade are already intimately involved with the delivery there,
>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>> might be worth engaging the wider development community who are
>>>>>>>>> affected by this kind of change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org  |  http://www.bleb.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Testingsquad-list mailing list
>>>>>>> Testingsquad-list at garage.maemo.org
>>>>>>> https://garage.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/testingsquad-list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>>
>
>


-- 
Iván Gálvez Junquera
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://garage.maemo.org/pipermail/testingsquad-list/attachments/20120326/3bf5564b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Testingsquad-list mailing list