[OOTB-addons] Documenting / organising acceptance criteria

Thu Nov 13 17:40:07 GMT 2014

Very interesting, he also did the alfresco-inboxes plugin which I like too:

http://softwareloop.com/inbox-plugin-for-alfresco-using-the-aikau-framework/

On 13/11/2014 17:31, Angel Borroy wrote:
> BTW, have you check uploader plus addon?
>
> http://softwareloop.com/uploader-plus-an-alfresco-uploader-that-prompts-for-metadata/
>
> It sounds very very good.
>
> Angel Borroy
> keen*soft*
>
> email: angel.borroy at keensoft.es <mailto:angel.borroy at keensoft.es>
> web: http://www.keensoft.es <http://www.keensoft.es/>
> móvil:  +34 655 47 47 55
>
> CONFIDENCIALIDAD:
>
> La presente comunicación y, en su caso, los ficheros que lleve 
> adjuntos, pertenecen exclusivamente a las personas a las que va 
> dirigido y puede contener información confidencial. Si usted no es el 
> destinatario de este mensaje (o la persona responsable de su entrega), 
> considérese advertido de que lo ha recibido por error y que cualquier 
> uso, difusión, reenvío o copia están prohibidos legalmente. Si ha 
> recibido este mensaje por error, por favor notifíquelo al remitente y 
> proceda a destruirlo inmediatamente.
>
> This message and the attached documents may contain 
> privileged/confidential information and intended solely for the use of 
> the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended 
> recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a 
> person) be advised that you have received this message in error and 
> that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this 
> e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in 
> error please notify it to the sender and destroy it immediately.
>
>
> En 13 de noviembre de 2014 en 16:00:39, Angel Borroy 
> (angel.borroy at keensoft.es <mailto:angel.borroy at keensoft.es>) escrito:
>
>> I've been on a nightmare migration project from OpenCMS to Alfresco 
>> and my spare time has been very short. However, next week seems to be 
>> less complicated, so I've planned to apply our criteria to an 
>> interesting addon (uploader plus) in order to get some practical 
>> feedback from it.
>>
>> Sorry for this delay: next week I'll be on again!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Angel Borroy
>> keensoft
>> 655474755
>>
>> El 13/11/2014, a las 13:07, Axel Faust <axel.faust at prodyna.com 
>> <mailto:axel.faust at prodyna.com>> escribió:
>>
>>> Hello Angel, @all,
>>>
>>> did you get a chance to review/consider the structure / contents? 
>>> There have been no wiki edits / issues or new mailing list replies 
>>> so far.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>> *Von:* OOTB-addons [mailto:ootb-addons-bounces at xtreamlab.net] *Im 
>>> Auftrag von* Axel Faust
>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 11:05
>>> *An:* Ángel Borroy
>>> *Cc:* ootb-addons at xtreamlab.net <mailto:ootb-addons at xtreamlab.net>
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [OOTB-addons] Documenting / organising acceptance 
>>> criteria
>>>
>>> Hi Angel,
>>>
>>> hmm -- the wiki does not appear to have a decent comment / 
>>> discussion support. Also, there are issues to consider regarding 
>>> "frozen state/version" of acceptance criteria and working on content 
>>> for a new iteration.
>>>
>>> The wiki being a Git repo could theoretically help in some cases, 
>>> but unfortunately the tooling is not that great -- no ability to 
>>> browse branches/tags in the wiki repo, no pull-requests ...
>>>
>>> For the moment, I would say:
>>>
>>> -Comments about the "how" / "why" of documenting / organizing our 
>>> criteria belong in this discussion, e.g. anything about general 
>>> structure, depth / detail and intent
>>>
>>> -Comments / discussion about specific contents in the wiki should 
>>> have a separate "forum"
>>>
>>> oOption a) Spin off a new discussion on the mailing list
>>>
>>> oOption b) Create an issue with proposed change(s) and apply changes 
>>> if in agreement (or no opposition after certain time)
>>>
>>> oOption c) Apply changes directly and
>>>
>>> §c1) use either option a) or b) to sort out conflicts with other 
>>> people's edits, or
>>>
>>> §c2) create "Talk"-pages (like in Wikipedia)
>>>
>>> Use your own discretion about which option to choose based on the 
>>> type of comment / issue you have with a piece of content.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>> *Von:* Ángel Borroy [mailto:angel.borroy at keensoft.es]
>>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 05:48
>>> *An:* Axel Faust
>>> *Cc:* ootb-addons at xtreamlab.net <mailto:ootb-addons at xtreamlab.net>
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [OOTB-addons] Documenting / organising acceptance 
>>> criteria
>>>
>>> Amazing job! I've been rewieving the content for a while, but I'll 
>>> need further study in order to get all this map clear. However, I 
>>> just have some comments on it. Should we use this mail list to 
>>> discuss about it? Or is there any review mechanism on the wiki?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Angel
>>>
>>> El domingo, 26 de octubre de 2014, Axel Faust 
>>> <axel.faust at prodyna.com <mailto:axel.faust at prodyna.com>> escribió:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> in the two weeks since Summit I have "played around" in our wiki 
>>> (https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki) trying out ways to 
>>> document and organize any acceptance criteria we have for addons 
>>> that we want to include in the collection. Currently, I have created 
>>> a page for a "quick overview" of all criteria 
>>> (https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Inclusion-criteria-overview) 
>>> and a couple of "sub-pages" that feature more detail in the 
>>> description of requirements -- and could potentially include 
>>> examples of accepted vs. unaccepted constellations / behaviour in 
>>> the future. These sub-pages are 
>>> https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Non-technical-inclusion-criteria 
>>> and 
>>> https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Technical-inclusion-criteria 
>>> for the moment, but may be further sub-divided when more content is 
>>> included.
>>>
>>> The overview should be easier to use as a checklist when we review 
>>> any addons since you don't have to interpret and mince with too much 
>>> textual description. But I think we won't get by without having a 
>>> more detailed, descriptive version of the criteria catalog either as 
>>> simple clarification or an argumentative basis when we discuss 
>>> reviews with addon developers. If -- in the long run -- we engage 
>>> with the Community in educating developers about aspects we consider 
>>> "best practice", this should allow us to easily expand a detailed 
>>> description of a single rule / criterion into a dedicated HowTo / 
>>> blog post.
>>>
>>> The current content of these pages in regards to acceptance criteria 
>>> reflects what I could think of to get started. Wherever possible I 
>>> tried to keep the various comments from previous discussions in 
>>> mind, but in the end, those contents are primarily intended as a 
>>> plastic example.
>>>
>>> Please take the time to review and share your thoughts.
>>>
>>> As several people discussed at Summit, we need to keep the momentum 
>>> of the Order in general going. I would like it if this meant we'll 
>>> have a first accepted draft of a criteria catalog sometime next 
>>> month and start doing the first "prototype reviews" before Christmas 
>>> holidays (and preparations) have everyone distracted for the rest of 
>>> the year. Defining the "how" of criteria documentation is the first 
>>> step...
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Angel Borroy
>>> keensoft
>>> 655 47 47 55
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OOTB-addons mailing list
> OOTB-addons at xtreamlab.net
> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-addons

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.xtreamlab.net/pipermail/ootb-addons/attachments/20141113/ef471b24/attachment-0001.html>