On Wednesday 16 November 2011 12:20:52 pm Darrell Anderson wrote:
> In light of recent public criticisms about Trinity's stability, do we have
> a plan or do we allow for sufficient time for usability testing? The focus
> seems to be about patching, packaging, and releases. Perhaps with the next
> release we should introduce a fixed time for serious usability testing?
> Proverbially, we all eat our own dog food before releasing the software?
>
> If a wider window for testing means a shorter window for code hacking then
> I vote for that. We don't adopt a testing window and code freeze as long as
> a large project like Debian, :) but we should officially promote a wide
> enough window to eat our own dog food. :)
>
> We touched upon this topic yesterday but I want to bring the topic to the
> table in a more "official" manner. :)

I'm a fan of the "when it works" release cycle. I don't think having a 
specific release date is a good idea (though certainly taking a very long 
time to release is bad too).

I think we should have a QA check list, something like:

-Solicit ideas for the next release
-Prioritize new features
--Which features are most important for next release?
-Solicit testing for:
--Usability
--Stability
--New features
-Paper cut bugs

That's just off the top of my head, I don't know that it's complete, but I 
think it's a start.

-- 
Kristopher Gamrat
Ark Linux webmaster
http://www.arklinux.org/