<div class="gmail_quote">Hi Simon -</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Some quick thoughts:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Simon Schampijer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@laptop.org">simon@laptop.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* Chamindra (Sri Lanka Testing Lead) explains the great streamlining<br>
power of:<br>
<a href="http://blog.TestLink.org" target="_blank">http://blog.TestLink.org</a><br>
Writing test cases and following them are a snap -- once someone<br>
installs this PHP site?<br><br></blockquote></div></div>
As you noted the new Sugar release is scheduled for the end of march [1]. With another month of planned bug fix builds.<br>
<br>
We need to do a lot of testing *now* :) A first attempt was the testing day [2]. We handed out a Sugar on a Stick image that people could use for testing. This was not menat to work on the XO. One could either put it on a USB-Stick and boot from another machine or run it in simulation.<br>
<br>
To be honest, the outcome of this day was rather 'ok'. I have asked myself a few questions how we could improve that, and I am happy to get feedback from the actual people doing testing and QA.<br>
<br>
* How does people want to work together? Asynchronously? Synchronosouly during a meeting? (If) How often should we do meetings? Weekly?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Planning around an asynch model is probably the best. We can do events etc periodically, but my hunch is that asynch will lower barriers to entry. And, it may be easiest to have lots of little testing sessions than a smaller number of much larger testing sessions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One of the things that this ad-hoc QA team has been discussing is utilising a platform designed for test suites called Testlink (<a href="http://testlink.org">http://testlink.org</a>). That way, project managers & test analysts can write up specific test cases and/or migrate the test cases currently on <a href="http://wiki.laptop.org">wiki.laptop.org</a>. Volunteers & teams that come in simply pick the next test at the top of the list. Ideally, this will avoid duplication and miscommunication across all testing efforts.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
* Do people only want to test XO-images?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My impression is that people will test what is useful & easy. Scratching own itch, etc. Therefore, if people are sent XOs, they will test XOs. If there is 'central' direction, I'm sure people will be open to testing.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Despite the disjointed way things are, I personally feel that testing is an area where OLPC, Sugarlabs & activity developers need to have a coordinated approach. It's often difficult to divorce Activities, Sugar, XOs... I personally would feel it would be best if there was a central place to report test results & have developers take their leads from there. At the moment, Sugar & OLPC have their own trackers. Will testlink make things worse?</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">