On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi Chip, > > I am working on the areas to be tested and plan of execution as we speak - > will be publishing it shortly. I have been following all the threads posted > so I have context for areas to be tested. > If there are no objections (or volunteers), I definitely would like to take > up QA Lead role for 4.1.
Fantastic! So are you OK with the idea of getting the assignment of test cases switched over to being "volunteering for test cases"? > Thanks > /Sudha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:21 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [ACS41][QA] Testing process for 4.1.0 > > Hi all, > > In our continued efforts to improve our community processes, I'd like to > propose a little bit of a change in how we go about the QA process for our > releases (to take effect in the 4.1.0 release cycle). > > My motivations are to increase: > 1) the visibility of test engineers that have already been working on the > project (especially those that happen to work for Citrix, but that aren't > very visible to the larger community) > 2) the diversity of the community members formally testing the releases > (e.g.: provide an opportunity for non-Citrix contributors to be part of the > formal QA processes) > > So what I'd like to propose is that someone volunteer to be the "QA lead" for > the release (Sudha, I'm looking in your general direction... > ;-) ). The QA lead can then pull together the list of test cases (or general > areas of testing). The list and actual test scenarios would need to be > public. > > Once the basic test strategy is in place, we hold "a call for testers" > to get the volunteer test army assembled. (I'd love to see contributors from > throughout the community step up to own some test > cases.) I'd suggest that we do this as a process of assignment via > volunteering, so that the opportunity exists for new community members to > grab a test or two. > > I know the changes aren't really that significant... but the idea is to get > the testing process opened up completely as a community activity. > > Does this make sense? Thoughts? Comments? Flames? > > -chip >
