Maintaining Activity Packs

[Kim Quirk]

Michael,
It seems like "recording the compatibility matrix between builds and
activities" alone is a 2-3 person job in the very near future. Today it is
probably a full time QA person -- and we are short about 3 QA people right
now.

It would be great to get some feedback as to how this can be achieved by the
developer of the activity -- or what kind of  automated tools can be
developed to make it easy to test compatibilty; and how can we encourage
people to do this testing. We have to assume that OLPC will NEVER have
enough people to do backward compatibility testing for activities, other
than a few very basic activities.

Kim


On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <
bmschwar at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Michael Stone wrote:
> |   * to the extent that we are able, we should record the compatibility
> |     matrix between builds and activities
>
> Once upon a time, there was going to be a build called "First Release to
> Service", and its number was to be 1.
> ~From http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activity_bundles:
> "Each activity.info file must have a "host_version" key. The version is a
> single positive integer. This specifies the version of the Sugar
> environment which the activity is compatible with. (fixme: need to specify
> sugar versions somewhere. Obviously we start with 1.)"
>
> It seems to me that FRS ~= Update.1.  It's all designed; it just needs to
> be implemented (and that's easy).
>
> |   * what assistance are we obligated to provide to deployments?
> If OLPC is not completely daft, it must do everything possible to make the
> governments happy, so that they are most likely to recommend OLPC to their
> neighbors.
>
> |   * if we discover notable flaws (security, legal, "objectionable
> |     content") in bundles that a deployment is using, what should we do?
> Communication and openness are the hallmarks of OLPC.
>
> |   * in particular, whose responsibility is it to initiate communication
> |     of this sort?
> What, you don't have a distinct relationship manager responsible for
> ensuring complete communication with each client?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFH5EPgUJT6e6HFtqQRAgtyAJ9pLkQZZSwjSZjCya67PUqGHqpDpACgmpjv
> wpUiyhV4z9aTu1wOc/RbPGk=
> =bZuB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080322/001c359f/attachment.html>