Joerg Sievers wrote: > Hi! > > Niklas Nebel wrote: >> Otherwise, we could do the same with QA: If they don't >> object within two weeks, a change is integrated. That would speed up >> things, too. :-) > > Best would be: No QA, no Doc, no UserEx, just hackin' code ;-)
Hehe, paradise is lost. At least when we started to get users :-) But we didn't talk about QA or documentation *work* here, we are talking about cases where exactly this does *not* happen and what we should do in these cases. > I agree in making the processes transparent, liveable etc. for all > stakeholders but it has to be also an agreement of them the we don't > want to give the quality away we have already reached - means: no > regression, no work hinderers (build and process breakers) anymore. I didn't read any proposals here that we wanted to leave that path. OTOH I really would like to open another discussion (means: a new thread) about what developers could do to make GUI testing or parts of it unnecessary in some defined cases. This will save us some time in QA so they will have more time for other CWS where perhaps more testing would be desirable. > Do we all agree that it > makes no sense to break this testing process which also being used by > porting-dev to get things done on other platforms!? Yes, for me that goes without a saying: we shouldn't lower the QA barriers. AFAIK the problems for volunteer developers we had in the past wheren't causes by too exhaustive testing but by no testing happening at all. We could do us all a favor if we could avoid this situation in the future and if all people involved developed a positive attitude towards community contributions - even if they are presented in a less than perfect way. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
