<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body smarttemplateinserted="true" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div id="smartTemplate4-quoteHeader">
<style type="text/css" scoped="">
#newHeaderAG1 b { font-weight:bold; color: #990033; min-width: 4.5em; max-width:none; display:inline-block;}
</style><br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="margin-bottom: -20px !important;
padding-bottom:20px !important;">
<div id="newHeaderAG1" style="font-size: x-small; padding:1em;
background-color:rgba(220,220,240,0.4); border-radius:3px;"> <b>Subject:</b>Re:
Changes to review policy<br>
<b>From:</b>Aleth<br>
<b>To:</b>Axel Grude; Tb-planning <br>
<b>Sent: </b>Thursday, 28/04/2016 12:11:38 12:11 GMT ST +0100
[Week 17]<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class=" cite"
id="mid_1461841898_4128090_592177921_20E20A74_webmail_messagingengine_com"
cite="mid:1461841898.4128090.592177921.20E20A74@webmail.messagingengine.com"
type="cite">
<title></title>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">On Thu, Apr 28, 2016, at 10:45 AM,
Axel Grude wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="Cite_7334277" type="cite">
<div>
<p>Would it be possible to recruit some people for voluntary
UAT - this means a more focused effort than just relying on
beta users to report. It would mean working with the new
features for a period of time (e.g. 2 weeks) within test
cases created by the patch author and then gathering the
results and reporting them back to the patch owner; either
directly or via Bugzilla comment. Also a link to a compiled
UAT build would have to be available.<br>
</p>
<p>I would volunteer for being a UAT tester, if it wouldn't
include code review or having to compile my own version.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"> </div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">It would be great to get more eyes
on new features. Daily builds and beta builds are available for
testing, you don't have to compile your own version. Beta
testers with ideas for how to improve new features should not
hesitate to file bugs.<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"> </div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;">There was a request for feedback
on this feature (and how it should be enabled) on tb-planning a
year ago:<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1152706#c8">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1152706#c8</a><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/2015-April/003762.html">https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/2015-April/003762.html</a><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"> </div>
<div style="font-family:Arial;"> </div>
</blockquote>
imho the beta process is a little to oblique and non-directional for
specific UAT testing; it would be great if there was a mailing list
or something that patch writers could use to release a list of "must
be tested by UAT because fundamental customer facing change" or
something. As much as I love bugzilla and the fb+ feature I don't
think it is necessarily the primary tool for choice for a UAT user
group; it is hard to find the relevant bugs so often times it is
just pure chance; I was testing the beta on and off but only found
out about the correspondence feature on the Friday when the new
release was mentioned.<br>
<br>
Any way it could UAT be integrated into a more streamlined / focused
work flow?<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>