Review request: Nice-to-have bug process documentation proposal

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Oct 7 17:24:27 UTC 2010


On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 11:07 -0400, James Laska wrote:

> > All of them. They're mostly modifications of existing pages. I'm not
> > quite sure how you get that they look the same, they're very different.
> 
> General note ... There are a few broken links on this page.  I didn't
> inspect *all* of them, but it looks like they will resolve once you've
> moved the documents into their proposed locations.  So probably not a
> big deal, I can understand the desire to not change the links before and
> after moving the pages into their final location.

Yeah, they'll work after the pages are all put live.

> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/QA:SOP_nth_process_nth_draft is a proposed new page which covers the whole nice-to-have review process much as the above proposed page covers the blocker review process.
> 
> My first reaction looking at the proposed blocker and nth process SOP
> pages was that they should be combined into a single page, since there
> is a lot of duplicate document structure/format.  But I can't think of
> any good proposals to offer at the moment that make it better (not
> worse).  It seems you've already been down this route too.

Yeah, I went back and forth. If you make them one page some of the
phrasing gets very long and clunky and possibly hard to parse, I was
happier with it as two pages.

> Perhaps a reflection on my visual learning habit, I've been playing
> around with some minor edits of the 2 previous wiki pages that make it a
> bit easier for me to rapidly locate/grok information without too much
> reading.  Of course, let me know if the edits are too invasive or
> detract from your intended message.

Thanks, I'll revert them all later ;)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net



More information about the test mailing list