Looking towards a Builder parade and QA

[Jacob Farber]

>From my pov, i would like to finalize the less detail/more detail conundrum,
and settle on a method of displaying the right amount of info without being
overwhelming. I think what I put into place needs to be converted into a
bulletproof javascript effect instead of a css effect, ensuring smoother
rollover behaviour. If it passes a11y requirements and a designers critique,
then I would be done.
Jacob

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Colin Clark <colinbdclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I just had a chance to test drive the shiny new deployment scripts Laurel
> created for the Builder. They work great! I'm super impressed with how much
> simpler the deploy process has become.
>
> With the new deploy scripts in place, and a number of our prominent issues
> resolved, I think we're ready to look towards doing a mini bug parade and QA
> cycle specifically for Builder. Next steps:
>
> 1. Laurel, can you go through the list of JIRAs filed against Builder,
> ensure they're up to date, and suggest which ones of them need to get done
> before we release? I filed a few issues while doing code review, so you'll
> want to check those out too. Some for now, some for later, I expect. Justin
> and I can help you with prioritization if you need it.
>
> 2. Jacob, can you fill us in on your plans are for finishing up the new
> Builder look and feel? What's left to do?
>
> 3. Justin, how is the QA test plan for Builder looking? Is it comprehensive
> and good?
>
> Lastly, a couple of quick questions for you, Laurel, about places we might
> further streamline the deploy process:
>
> * Any thoughts on ways we might automate the cache priming process? A
> script using curl? A little web page that makes Ajax requests to the
> Builder?
>
> * The only snag I hit with the process was when I accidently typed the DB
> password incorrectly. My first instinct was to just run the script again,
> but since the deploy process is destructive, it didn't work until I checked
> it all out again. Should we perhaps copy instead of move, or is there a
> reason to do it this way?
>
> * I'm thinking we might be able to whittle the deploy steps down to one if
> we created a little shell script that runs each of the first six steps
> outlined in your documentation, prompting the user to supply the DB username
> and password. What do you think?
>
> Let's get this one out the door!
>
> Colin
>
> ---
> Colin Clark
> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
> http://fluidproject.org
>
>


-- 
Jacob Farber
University of Toronto - ATRC
Tel: (416) 946-3002
www.fluidproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20091201/043e74e2/attachment.html>