View source for Projects/ESAPI Swingset/Releases/ESAPI Swingset RC 4/Assessment

<small>[[:Projects/ESAPI Swingset|Click here to return to project's detail tab]]</small><br>

== Stable Release Review of the OWASP ESAPI Swingset RC 4 ==

==== Project Leader for this Release ====
'''''[[user:Cathal Courtney|Cathal Courtney]]'s Pre-Assessment Checklist:'''''

{{ Pre-Assessment Questions - Tools

| 1. Is this release associated with a project containing at least the [[Assessing_Project_Health#Project_Wiki_Page_Minimal_Content|Project Wiki Page Minimum Content]]  information?
= answer 1

| 2. Is your tool licensed under an open source license? 
= answer 2

| 3. Is the source code and any documentation available in an online project repository? 
= answer 3

| 4. Is there working code? 
= answer 4

| 5. Is there a roadmap for this project release which will take it from Alpha to Stable release? 
= answer 5

| 6. Are the Alpha pre-assessment items complete?
= answer 6

| 7. Is there an installer or stand-alone executable? 
= answer 7
 
| 8. Is there user documentation on the OWASP project wiki page? 
= answer 8

| 9. Is there an "About box" or similar help item which lists the following? 
= answer 9

| 10. Is there documentation on how to build the tool from source including obtaining the source from the code repository? 
= answer 10

| 11. Is the tool documentation stored in the same repository as the source code?
= answer 11

| 12. Are the Alpha and Beta pre-assessment items complete? 
= answer 12

| 13. Does the tool include documentation built into the tool? 
= answer 13

| 14. Does the tool include build scripts to automate builds? 
= answer 14

| 15. Is there a publicly accessible bug tracking system? 
= answer 15

| 16. Have any existing limitations of the tool been documented? 
= answer 16
}}

==== First Reviewer ====
'''''[mailto:name@name Name?]'s Review:'''''<br />
<small>Ideally, reviewers should be an existing OWASP project leader or chapter leader.</small>

{{ Assessment Questions - Tools

| 1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?      = (answer #1) Delete this text and place your answer here. The same for the questions below.

| 2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?
= (answer #2) 

|3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?
= (answer #3) 

| 4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?
= (answer #4)

| 5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?
= (answer #5)

| 6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?
= (answer #6)

| 7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?
= (answer #7)

| 8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?
= (answer #8)

| 9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?
= (answer #9)

| 10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.
= (answer #10)

| 11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)
= (answer #11)

| 12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.
= (answer #12)

| 13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?
= (answer #13)

| 14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?
= (answer #14)

}}

==== Second Reviewer ====
'''''[mailto:name@name Name?]'s Review:'''''<br />
<small>It is recommended that an OWASP board member or Global Projects Committee member be the second reviewer on Quality releases. The board has the initial option to review the project, followed by the Global Projects Committee.</small>
{{ Assessment Questions - Tools

| 1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?      = (answer #1) Delete this text and place your answer here. The same for the questions below.

| 2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?
= (answer #2) 

|3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?
= (answer #3) 

| 4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?
= (answer #4)

| 5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?
= (answer #5)

| 6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?
= (answer #6)

| 7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?
= (answer #7)

| 8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?
= (answer #8)

| 9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?
= (answer #9)

| 10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.
= (answer #10)

| 11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)
= (answer #11)

| 12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.
= (answer #12)

| 13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?
= (answer #13)

| 14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?
= (answer #14)

}}

__NOTOC__
<headertabs/>