Talk:New Builds Team

From Audacity Wiki
Revision as of 18:39, 17 February 2017 by James (talk | contribs) (Naming of builds.)
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Use blogs to coordinate this, e.g. the Calls and the tracking of user response?
  • Want high payoff for testers - they get early access to features that interest them?
  • What level of participation by testers makes what level of effort by us in setting this up worthwhile?

Lots to work out...

Gale 06Jul16: I would not like to track and co-ordinate in the WordPress interface we have now. And if we want any tester input there, it's ruled out because we can't give access. So really the blogs are only for calls and announcements, I guess. And I still think we should use the announcements e-mail system as well. Who can find the "blogs" on our current WordPress site?

James 06July16: Tracking is more easily doable than you think and similar in ease to tables in Wiki. We could even give a few alpha testers non publishing rights on Wordpress, I believe, but let's not plan to. Blogs can't currently be found because we don't have any written, other than announcements. Blogs can appear in sidebar and be very findable.

  • Gale 16Feb17: Sidebar news/blog entries are currently hidden below the scroll (or at the bottom of the page if zoomed in or using mobile).

Different levels of engagement

Gale 16Feb17: Users interested in trying out new features in an experimental release probably have a little less engagement than those willing to test more broadly in a milestone alpha (a.k.a. KTT alpha). Both will have much less engagement than anyone willing to test nightly builds on a regular basis from the start of the development cycle, but we should try to encourage a few users into that too.

Nomenclature Alpha/Beta

Peter 16Feb17: James wrote on the page: "This is for selected alphas, ones that could be suitable for production use."

Tradtionally, and customarily, such alphas that are considered "suitable for production use" are labelled as Betas.

Our Alpha nightlies are usually bleeding-edge works-in progress.

At risk of opening up an old Audacity discussion about "no Betas" I really think we should be considering forming not an "Alpha Test Team" but rather a "Beta Test Team" - it would appear more honest and more clear.

IIRC the reason we adopted the "no Betas" was because of the long run of the 1.3.x "Beta" series without getting anywhere near a formal release. This should not be the case if we adopt what I am suggesting here.

See this Wikipedia page on Software release life cycle

  • Gale 16Feb17: I suppose it is possible that we could call an alpha at semi-freeze (which typically has no open P1's) a "Beta" however there is as you say the historical baggage of our Betas and the perceived instability that comes with them. I notice that many users call our alpha nightly builds "Betas" and clearly don't understand the difference between the two stages.
  • Gale 17Feb17 My vote is for alpha-milestone-<number> for milestones and for topical alphas, <alpha-<feature>-<number> and not to split the testers initiative into two parts (at least, I think that right now).
  • James 17Feb17 Fine by me for the file-name of the build on Audacity-devel.html, even if a build does happen to be of very high quality. We may not know for sure it is high quality until later.