Hi,
I think ReactOS lacks of testers since WaxDragon is gone. So I had the following idea: A page which lists all regressions and gives you the option to report a working / non-working revision and calculates the range in which it the regression was caused from that data.
I know that bugzilla comments are actually sufficient for this and of course this system would have to be linked with bugzilla, but I think that a page where the regressions are listed up would be more motivating to help testing.
What do you think about it ?
Best regards, Maarten Bosma
On 3/24/06, Maarten Bosma maarten.paul@bosma.de wrote:
Hi,
I think ReactOS lacks of testers since WaxDragon is gone.
Just because I don't have time to be TC doesn't mean I'm gone. ;0)
So I had the following idea: A page which lists all regressions and gives you the option to report a working / non-working revision and calculates the range in which it the regression was caused from that data.
Honestly , Bugzilla is the best place. Since testers should not only concern themselves with regressions, but unimplemented features. Having a separate page will just be another thing that needs maintained, and frankly getting good bug reports is hard enough.
I know that bugzilla comments are actually sufficient for this and of course this system would have to be linked with bugzilla, but I think that a page where the regressions are listed up would be more motivating to help testing.
What do you think about it ?
I think a "status" page and a testing guide would be most helpful. The status page could be used to fend off the inevitable questions, and the guide will highlight the things that *do* need testing, and if everyone is testing the same things, then regressions will become self-evident.
Here is the "guide", which is just my testing notes: http://waxdragon.homeip.net/~ford/reactos/ros_regression_items.html
We really need a TC.
WD
-- <Bizzeh> it even has a panda that pops out of your case and mauls people who ask stupid questions
I think the similar way - bugzilla can handle everything we need: bugs, regressions, etc. And it provides one "window" through which anyone can see all currently outstanding problems.
WaxDragon - what do you think about utilising some tool like scmbug? Testing guide would be very cool too.
WBR, Aleksey Bragin.
On Mar 25, 2006, at 2:49 AM, WaxDragon wrote:
On 3/24/06, Maarten Bosma maarten.paul@bosma.de wrote:
Hi,
I think ReactOS lacks of testers since WaxDragon is gone.
Just because I don't have time to be TC doesn't mean I'm gone. ;0)
So I had the following idea: A page which lists all regressions and gives you the option to report a working / non-working revision and calculates the range in which it the regression was caused from that data.
Honestly , Bugzilla is the best place. Since testers should not only concern themselves with regressions, but unimplemented features. Having a separate page will just be another thing that needs maintained, and frankly getting good bug reports is hard enough.
I know that bugzilla comments are actually sufficient for this and of course this system would have to be linked with bugzilla, but I think that a page where the regressions are listed up would be more motivating to help testing.
What do you think about it ?
I think a "status" page and a testing guide would be most helpful. The status page could be used to fend off the inevitable questions, and the guide will highlight the things that *do* need testing, and if everyone is testing the same things, then regressions will become self-evident.
Here is the "guide", which is just my testing notes: http://waxdragon.homeip.net/~ford/reactos/ros_regression_items.html
We really need a TC.
WD
-- <Bizzeh> it even has a panda that pops out of your case and mauls people who ask stupid questions
WaxDragon wrote:
Honestly , Bugzilla is the best place. Since testers should not only concern themselves with regressions, but unimplemented features. Having a separate page will just be another thing that needs maintained, and frankly getting good bug reports is hard enough.
You can simply query the information from the bugzilla database.
Maarten Bosma
WaxDragon wrote:
I think a "status" page and a testing guide would be most helpful. The status page could be used to fend off the inevitable questions,
How exactly would that status page look like ? Who would maintain it ?
and the guide will highlight the things that *do* need testing, and if everyone is testing the same things, then regressions will become self-evident.
Dosn't everything need testing ?
Maarten Bosma
How exactly would that status page look like ? Who would maintain it ?
I haven't thought much about it, but there have been several requests for one.
Dosn't everything need testing ?
Things that are not implemented or blocked by another feature do not need to be tested, yet. Having a guide lets testers know what is known to be working and needs regression testing, and what features are being worked on and need functional and regression testing.
WD -- <Bizzeh> it even has a panda that pops out of your case and mauls people who ask stupid questions
WaxDragon wrote:
Things that are not implemented or blocked by another feature do not need to be tested, yet. Having a guide lets testers know what is known to be working and needs regression testing, and what features are being worked on and need functional and regression testing.
Then the support database is actually what you want.
Maarten Bosma
-
Aleksey Bragin -
Maarten Bosma -
WaxDragon