Re: Implementing my proposal for the organisation of QA
Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> I'd like to get this running, so I'd like you to tell me within one week:
> - if you seriously object against it
> - to tell your comments about the suggested tasks below
I have no objection to having people that are designated as being
responsible for certain tasks. But I think it's important that the
doing of tasks not be restricted to those people. They are just the
fall backs, in case nobody else happens to do it.
Further, I have the idea that the tasks should *all* land on the TODO
list, regularly posted. So, for example, every month there would be a
new TODO item added, relating to cleaning up stale ITAs. The task
would identify the correct procedure to follow.
Then, anyone interested could easily notice "oh, the ITAs haven't been
done this month yet", claim the TODO item, and take care of it. Next
month, another item would automagically be posted.
Similarly for all regularly recurring tasks.
I think that all bugs which are "important" and reside in "important"
packages [I do not have a firm opinion of what the exact threshhold
should be for either of these] should automatically get added to the
TODO list once the bug report is opened. Each such bug should get
looked at by QA to see if it requires particular QA attention, and if
not, the TODO item can be closed. If the bug itself remains open for
(say) two weeks, then it should automagically land on the QA TODO list
again.
Thomas
Reply to: