Request: please consider clarifying the project's position on Spins
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Sat Dec 4 01:33:07 UTC 2010
On 12/03/2010 10:40 PM, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> Sorry Adam. You're exactly right. I should have made it clear again: as I
> posted earlier in the thread, it seems like QA has gone the farthest down
> the line towards getting this right, and again I wonder how other "service"
> groups might learn from QA's example
The lesson to be learn from QA is simple first and foremost be generic
enough to cover all bases then build on top of that to tailor to
specific cases in our ( our being QA ) case those cases are components.
Adam mentioned only the desktop but same thing applies to our networking
test our installing test etc. so if we change installer or if a spin
introduces another installer we can still use our installing tests if we
change networking application or spin introduces an alternative one we
can still use our tests and so on and so fourth.
Also notice that we don't have redo/update all our work which we
otherwise would have to do had we implemented a solution tailored to
specific components or a group of components
So what Design team do is spend it's resource to come up with a
background that all DE spin ( which exist already ) a set of generic
icons that all DE can use and a generic themes or set of theming
guidelines that all DE can use and try to package in such way that all
DE can use.
I'm assuming that the our infrastructures web department has a set
generic rules on how each desktop web page should look like and what
material it should at least contain and documenting and marketing have
to be tailored to relevant spin and it's function so each spin will need
to write their own documentation and collaborite with the documentation
team when doing so and provide the marketing team with the material on
what should be highlighted on each release.
JBG
More information about the advisory-board
mailing list