[olpc-nz] Activities.sugarlabs.org editors

[David Farning]

weird. this just came through today.  do you still have question that
I could help you with?

david

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Tom Parker <tom at carrott.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>