A suggestion on process

Mark Hymers markh at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Aug 15 10:54:13 PDT 2001


On Wed, 15, Aug, 2001 at 11:47:27AM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote:
> 
> 
> > [...] Verification [etc...]
> > Does this sound reasonable, or am I just being anal? All comments
> > appreciated.
> 
> It's a good idea in the way it could ensure higher quality.  On the negative
> side I see possibly slower development.  Also, whould have to make sure ppl
> are checking things in a timely manner, so stuff doesn't just sit in the
> bugzilla unverified for a long time.  IMHO,  there whould have to be a small
> team of ppl assigned to just checking, because of timezones and real life
> etc...  This whould help the timelyness issue.  Our fearless leader Mark
> will have to weigh the pluses and minuses of this.  (do most *BSD dist's do
> devel this way?)
> 
s/fearless/senseless/g
;-)

I can see the arguements for having a QA team.  For most instructions,
before I've been adding them to cvs I've tried them myself - I certainly
always quickly read them.  The problem is that I can't always do it.  I
therefore agree with the principle of having people who will do it.  The
only problem is that I don't want development slowed by it.  Could other
people comment on this while I try and think of the best way of dealing
with it... I'm wondering if it'd be possible to get Bugzilla, when a
bug is marked Resolved|Finished, to send an email to the list marked
ATTN: QA: Bug Numbers/Desc.  That way it'd be obvious that something
needed doing.  

We'd definately need volunteers for QA... Anybody?

Mark

-- 
Mark Hymers					 BLFS Project Leader
markh at linuxfromscratch.org



More information about the blfs-book mailing list