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/