On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Aaron Faanes <dafrito@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 23:05 -0500, Aaron Faanes wrote: >> >>> I worked on this draft a bit on my own user-page. Specifically, I >>> wikified some of the links and heavily edited the overview paragraph. >>> I'm not an expert by any means on the proven-testers proposal, so I >>> might have introduced inaccuracies. Here's the link: >>> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dafrito/Draft_proventesters_instructions#Testing_process >> >> I definitely think your version is an improvement on mine, thanks very >> much. I'd say let's consider this the current working draft for now. >> >>> I wonder if the article would read better by shaping the article >>> around responsibilities directly. Each responsibility might be a >>> separate section. Here's an example: >>> >>> Overview >>> Responsibilities >>> - Find & install updates to test (Explain updates-testing, Bodhi, >>> --enablerepo, etc.) >>> - Ensure minimum required functionality (Explain release criteria, >>> critpath actions) >>> - Investigate problematic updates (Explain techniques?) >>> - Report karma to Bodhi, and Bugzilla if necessary (Explain karma rules) >> >> This seems to be how you've done it in your current draft, and I like >> that. >> >>> On the other hand, if it seems like these responsibilities share a lot >>> of information, then the separate sections could instead become bullet >>> points under a 'Responsibilities' section. The shared infomration >>> would then become separate sections: >>> >>> Overview >>> Responsibilities >>> Getting Updates (ways to enable updates-testing) >>> Criteria >>> - release criteria >>> - critpath actions >>> Tools >>> - fedora-easy-karma >>> - bodhi >>> >>> This might be too article-centric. If the goal of the page is to >>> strictly define proven-testers, then a step-by-step outline makes more >>> sense. However, linear instructions imply strict adherence, and there >>> seems to be a lot of flexibility in how proven-testers can/should >>> work. >>> >>> I'd be happy to continue working on this by implementing one of the >>> outlines above on my draft, or by doing something entirely different, >>> too! I just figured I'd throw some ideas out before I got ahead of >>> myself. :) >> >> I'm pretty pleased with your current draft, but if you like the second >> one better, that's cool too. Or you could draft both and we could pick >> which we like. =) > > I'm kind-of liking the first one better, too. I think it emphasizes > the responsibilities more clearly. We might run into an issue if we > skim it down too much, but we'll see. :) > >> I think the 'Investigate & provide feedback' section could be >> streamlined a little - with your nicer framework, some of the content is >> duplicated or unnecessary and can be trimmed. > > I agree, that section could use some love. It seems to have a lot of > information, though. I sketched out a possible outline: > > Typical Scenarios > - Major bug - Report, vote down > - Minor bug - Report, vote up/neutral > - Previously reported bug - Confirm, vote accordingly > Unusual Scenarios > - Unreproducible bug > - Unfamiliar package > > It's possible we'd drop this outline into a separate section from > Responsibilities, and just leave the "Investigate" section to briefly > describe what needs to be done. > >>Do you mind if I make some edits to achieve this? Thanks again! > > Not at all! Go right ahead. You can copy it to yours if you want, or > to another page; I don't have a preference. > > I really appreciate your feedback! I'll try to work on it more > tonight, and if not, then definitely tomorrow. > > -- Aaron Faanes > >> -- >> Adam Williamson >> Fedora QA Community Monkey >> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org >> http://www.happyassassin.net >> >> -- >> test mailing list >> test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test >> > I believe the proven-testers draft is ready for review. It's grown a bit more ambitious, but I tried to stay true to the spirit of the original draft - I did my best to only revise and clarify the content without affecting its meaning. Still, it requires a look-over by some knowledgeable folks to weed out inaccuracies, invalid assumptions, etc. Here's the link: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Dafrito/Draft_proventesters_instructions The discussion page asks about some other issues that I ran into, specifically: * The relationship between critpath actions and release criteria * A more exhaustive list of critpath actions * The future of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters and if any content should be exchanged or merged between the two articles. * Whether the article should be pushed to wiki/Proven_tester with a {{Draft}} template. I'd like to do this to encourage contribution, but that may be premature. I definitely welcome any edits, corrections, and/or feedback on these questions and the submitted draft! -- Aaron Faanes -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
