[olpc-nz] Activities.sugarlabs.org editors

Tom Parker tom at carrott.org
Mon Feb 14 04:19:53 EST 2011


On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 08:43 -0600, David Farning wrote:
> We never had the resources to test new activities before release in
> a.sl.o, as a result activities are released before qa.  This has been
> causing increasingly more trouble.  As the quality assurance on a.sl.o
> falls, fewer deployments use it:(

Releasing with no QA at all is a very undesirable situation.

I think we are technically capable of performing approvals, but our
resources are quite limited. We meet every Saturday, so requiring our OK
would cause significant delays. In QA mode, is there a public "beta"
site where the activities are publicly available until they are
approved? I sometimes see several releases in one day, I don't know if
this is due to feedback from downloads via the aslo site, they rarely
have release notes to explain what is going on.

If activities are going to be approved, what is the criteria for
approval? Obviously, the occasional releases that don't start or don't
work at all shouldn't be approved. Should the recent batch of games
which consume 100% cpu be allowed (I would say no)? What if the previous
version(s) also did so (much more difficult)? We could say a release
should introduce no new regressions, but what about new features that
have bugs? What about bugs that are fatal but rare (like the physics
core dump on scribble (vaguely recall this might be fixed now))?

Are some activities more important and held to a higher standard (such
as the set that can't be deleted) and others less important and so held
to a lower standard?

How many different releases should they be tested against? We can
dedicate a few XO-1s to different builds for this purpose, but we don't
have many XO-1.5s in Auckland to do that.





More information about the olpc-nz mailing list