waddlesplash wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:57 PM DCatt <dcatt.haiku@xxxxxxx> wrote:I have over the years thought about what it would take to get a more official QA presence established for the Haiku project, but I think I struggle with how it would fit into the scheme of things. It would obviously have to not get in the way so-to-speak. I think the hardest part is how would QA fit into the overall process. QA folks usually like to formulate test cycles for planned releases, providing feedback to the developers in hopes to get nasty show-stopping bugs fixed and eventually sign off something worth shipping to production. However, maybe that's not the way you do it with the Haiku project. QA could be more transparent and maybe just sample nightly builds on a scheduled interval and treat them as unofficial RCs and perform regression testing to validate the reliable state of Haiku and report back to the developers and let them decide what is shippable concerning a more official release.
I was more curious about what `testing` Waddlesplash had in mind.
Obviously there is no (official?) QA contingent on the Haiku project.
So for me, what does he mean by testing? Random folks just taking
Haiku for a rigorous drive and report back anything horrible?
That was what I meant, yeah. I'd love for us to have something more
substantial than that, but I don't have the time to organize and
direct it myself. If you or anyone else does, though, that would be
awesome.
-waddlesplash
