Hi Paul,
Thanks for the reply. Please see inline suggestion.
Judy
Paul Davies wrote:
> Judy Tang wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> It sound reasonable. Do please keep the following into the
>> consideration.
>>
>> (1) Please help us to communicate to the doc team to try to fix those
>> bugs we
>> have opened by beta 3 HCF. SQE will only have time to do onc cycle of
>> review, so it is more efficient to have all the bugs fixed, then SQE
>> starts the
>> review. That is the reason I send out the list of bugs to follow up.
>
>
> Perhaps it would makes sense for me to discuss with the doc group the
> process for fixing bugs and to document the process. I am thinking
> that any bug fixes should be initially reviewed by the submitter and
> the engineering SME before the fix is delivered to SQE for
> verification. Does that sound reasonable?
(1) "any bug fixes should be initially reviewed by the submitter", that
is good. In this case, those bugs opened by SQE will be
verified at the same time when SQE do the testing. Since most doc bugs
I think are opened by SQE, so we are kind already
do the way as you suggested.
(2) "any bug fixes should be initially reviewed by the engineering SME",
the time would be better spent for engineering to
give the first round of review. Review each doc bug could be time
consuming.
>>
>> (2) SQE needs at least 1 week time to finish the review. With your
>> plan to
>> have SQE start the review after beta 3 HCF, then bugs we open will
>> most likely to get fixed in AS 9.1 FCS, right ?
>
>
> Yes, that's what I was thinking.
>
> Regards,