Project goals for F15

Eric "Sparks" Christensen sparks at
Fri Nov 12 13:50:37 UTC 2010

Hash: SHA1

On 11/12/2010 02:14 AM, Zach Oglesby wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Eric "Sparks" Christensen
> <sparks at> wrote:
>> For the QA goal, I foresee all changes to guides being put in front of
>> an editor/fact checker to make sure that what we are saying is correct
>> and that the procedures are correct (and most importantly won't bork
>> someone's system).  The QA process can be integrated into Bugzilla (it's
>> actually already there) and we can keep track of changes in that manner.
>> Anyone have any thoughts?
> We should get some time lines together for QA and add them to the
> schedule, during the last release, checks started late on at least one
> doc and caused it to miss set publication time lines. We need to sit
> down and figure out what the schedule should be, but some docs are
> much longer then others so we need to have a good buffer built in.
> I think that we should also add a QA contact to the guides table [1],
> making that person over all responsible for making sure that the doc
> gets checked. I am not saying that person has to do all the work, but
> we need to have some kind of oversight on it.
> [1]:

Agreed.  We should get Robyn in on modifying the schedule a bit for F15.
 I think RH has a figure for how long it takes to QA a guide based on
the number of pages.  My thought is that if we keep all the changes on
BZ and only commit the patches once they have been approved by the QA
person then we could cut down on the amount of time it should take to do
the work.  Especially when you can look at the patch and see what was
changed (if you know the base was correct in the first place).

QA people can be assigned to each BZ product to automatically get the
tickets so all I need to do is figure out who wants to do what guides
and I can put that into BZ.

- --Eric

Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -


More information about the docs mailing list