David,
Pursuant
to your email below, http://wiki.eclipse.org/Talk:COSMOS_QA_i9_Activities
now lives. Also, your comments at the bottom of the Talk page have been
addressed.
Kishore /
Srinivas,
Please
review http://wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_QA_i9_Activities; this is supposed to detail the scope what the QA
activities will be in i9. As an output from this morning’s
Architecture call, this page addresses the following:
·
What will QA and Development do in regards to JUnits / manual
·
QA’s e2e testing scope
·
QA scope for platforms and configurations
·
How the QA phase is linked to the RE / build process
If you have any comments / open items, please add to the talk page http://wiki.eclipse.org/Talk:COSMOS_QA_i9_Activities
or email to this dev list.
Thanks,
Jimmy Mohsin
Cell +1-609-635-1703
From:
cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David Whiteman
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:39 PM
To: Cosmos Dev
Subject: Re: [cosmos-dev] REVIEW & input requested - Bugzilla ER
216529
Hi Jimmy,
Wouldn't it be
a good convention for a wiki page and its associated talk page to have the same
name? I.e. I would suggest a better name for the talk page here to be http://wiki.eclipse.org/Talk:COSMOS_QA_i9_Activities. Also, I think
it's a good convention to provide a link at the top of a talk page back to the
regular wiki page since you don't know what direction someone is navigating
from.
David
cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on
01/31/2008 01:53:34 PM:
> All,
> I have made the following updates to
the Design page for this ER 216529 (http:
> //wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_QA_i9_Activities). Please review and
provide your input
> by either replying to this dev list or by updating the Talk page at
http://wiki.
> eclipse.org/Talk:COSMOS_Design_216529
> I did this in light of TWO goals:
> ·
Follow-up on items from the i8 autopsy we conducted this morning
> ·
Specifying in scope and out of scope items for the i9 QA phase, and its
> linkages to the Development and RE processes
> PLEASE provide input, as we want to
have a smoother i9 closure.
> Thanks,
> Jimmy Mohsin
> P.S. David / Ruth, I would be
especially interested in your input.
