On 12/03/2010 10:40 PM, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Sorry Adam. You're exactly right. I should have made it clear again: as I > posted earlier in the thread, it seems like QA has gone the farthest down > the line towards getting this right, and again I wonder how other "service" > groups might learn from QA's example The lesson to be learn from QA is simple first and foremost be generic enough to cover all bases then build on top of that to tailor to specific cases in our ( our being QA ) case those cases are components. Adam mentioned only the desktop but same thing applies to our networking test our installing test etc. so if we change installer or if a spin introduces another installer we can still use our installing tests if we change networking application or spin introduces an alternative one we can still use our tests and so on and so fourth. Also notice that we don't have redo/update all our work which we otherwise would have to do had we implemented a solution tailored to specific components or a group of components So what Design team do is spend it's resource to come up with a background that all DE spin ( which exist already ) a set of generic icons that all DE can use and a generic themes or set of theming guidelines that all DE can use and try to package in such way that all DE can use. I'm assuming that the our infrastructures web department has a set generic rules on how each desktop web page should look like and what material it should at least contain and documenting and marketing have to be tailored to relevant spin and it's function so each spin will need to write their own documentation and collaborite with the documentation team when doing so and provide the marketing team with the material on what should be highlighted on each release. JBG _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
