On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> 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_instructi...
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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test