Testing / Sign Off / Approval Plan For Roll Forward of Lithium

RESOLVED INVALID

Status

P1
major
RESOLVED INVALID
a year ago
a year ago

People

(Reporter: rolandtanglao, Unassigned)

Tracking

Details

This tracker will track QA for the URL redirect solution from Lithium. It includes the following and more:

1. A test plan
2. QA by the Firefox team of the Firefox product including any manual and automated testing
3. QA by Lithium

Updated

a year ago
Blocks: 1358221

Updated

a year ago
Summary: [tracker] QA for URL redirect Lithium and Mozilla solution → Testing / Sign Off / Approval Plan For Roll Forward of Lithium

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1360016

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1360018

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1360024

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1360025

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1360026

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1360027
(In reply to Roland Tanglao :rolandtanglao, :mohnkuchen, :adobo, :sinigang, :roland from comment #0)
> This tracker will track QA for the URL redirect solution from Lithium. It
> includes the following and more:
> 
> 1. A test plan
> 2. QA by the Firefox team of the Firefox product including any manual and
> automated testing
> 3. QA by Lithium

Is anyone going to verify the quality of the linked KB articles when displayed from products in Lithium as compared with how they display in Kitsune. 

Is that an important part of this move back to Lithium ensuring Lithium is not mangling the linked articles?
(For instance only some of the showfor bugs - Bug 1350856 - may get fixed before we move back   )


Is it an important part of this move back that help articles aimed at contributors and end users are helpful and accurate.
On Kitsune they are. 
As soon as we move back to Lithium some of the the Kitsune KB Articles may become inappropriate. 
We do not currently have a suitable set of contributor facing Lithium KnowledgeBase articles {Bug 1348891}. 
For instance we do not explain how to use the Lithium Knowledge Base & the procedures to keep the KB well maintained.
See Also: → bug 1350856, bug 1348891

Updated

a year ago
Priority: -- → P1
We clearly will not want to roll forward to a Lithium that has missing KB articles.
No point in fixing redirects but having missing KB articles.
See also bug 1360005 &  Bug 1370422
See Also: → bug 1360005, bug 1370422

Updated

a year ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: a year ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.