QA/Execution/Meetings/2009-02-11: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
*** Opinion: Defining guidelines and expecting contributors to follow those guidelines is a good idea. However, throwing up road blocks to the community is a terrible idea. This isn't software code that requires a review process to protect an application. Just deal with inappropriate content as it shows up. Has it been an overwhelming problem so far? (Tracy) | *** Opinion: Defining guidelines and expecting contributors to follow those guidelines is a good idea. However, throwing up road blocks to the community is a terrible idea. This isn't software code that requires a review process to protect an application. Just deal with inappropriate content as it shows up. Has it been an overwhelming problem so far? (Tracy) | ||
* QA for rtl locales | * QA for rtl locales (henrik) | ||
** 3 offical locales in the tree (Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian) and Afghanistan in beta state | ** 3 offical locales in the tree (Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian) and Afghanistan in beta state | ||
** UI can be tested by using Ehsan's [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7438 Force RTL] extension | ** UI can be tested by using Ehsan's [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7438 Force RTL] extension |
Revision as of 17:12, 11 February 2009
« previous mtg | index | next mtg »
Discussion Items
- Financial Institution Testing (henrik)
- Internal site
- How can we track changes on the internal wiki (RSS doesn't seem to be useful)?
- Public site
- Internal site
- QA Q109 Workweek (marcia) 2/17-2/20
- List is pretty full. Anything else to add?
- QMO stuff (marcia)
- Style Guide/Community Leads
- It has become clear that we need to both have a process for promoting people to Community Leads as well as some control over people adding content. Today I noticed that someone had added "It's okay we don't bite" to the Community FAQ - I edited that content out, but we can't just let people add content willy nilly. There needs to be some sort of review process. One thing that Tomcat mentioned is to have people create bugs and then have a QA team member review + the document just like a patch.
- discussion - should have a vetting process for community members who want admin access. (marcia) and (tomcat) to work on a guide to demonstrate they are behaving properly.
- Any update on this?
- discussion - for content issues, should we review what content is posted before allowing it on QMO? (marcia) and (tomcat) to work on a policy guide.
- Any update on this?
- Opinion: Defining guidelines and expecting contributors to follow those guidelines is a good idea. However, throwing up road blocks to the community is a terrible idea. This isn't software code that requires a review process to protect an application. Just deal with inappropriate content as it shows up. Has it been an overwhelming problem so far? (Tracy)
- Style Guide/Community Leads
- QA for rtl locales (henrik)
- 3 offical locales in the tree (Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian) and Afghanistan in beta state
- UI can be tested by using Ehsan's Force RTL extension
- No-one from QA is covering this area?
- There are regressions from FF3.0. Some ui changes were reviewed without testing the patch on rtl locales
Project Updates
- Firefox 3.0.7 (abillings)
- Firefox 3.1 (tchung)
- Beta 3 Testplan
- Builds hand to QA - Still no word.
- QA test signoff - +5 days
- Tracking Status page
- Update your testing progress percentages
- Beta 3 Testplan
- 3.0 -> 3.1b3 major update trial run (abillings)
- Test Plan is available
- Webdev update (stephend)
- Mobile update (jmaher)
- Litmus results cleanup project (tracy)
- Accessibility update (MarcoZ)
Other topics?