Thorsten Ziehm wrote: > Hi Mathias, > > Mathias Bauer schrieb: > >> More testing on the master(!) would be very welcome. But on the CWS? >> This will make the "time to master" even longer and then again we are in >> the vicious cycle I explained in my first posting in this thread. > > Yes more testing on Master is welcome, that is true. But most testing > must be done on CWS. When broken code is in the master code line it > take too much time to fix it. And then you cannot do Quality Assurance. > You can make testing, but that has nothing to do with hold a Quality > standard!
I don't see a lot of sense in making tests mandatory just because we have them. If a test probably can help to find problems in areas where we know that we have them, fine. So when tests are defined it's necessary to see which problems they can catch and if that's what we need. I had a look on the regressions that I can judge - some of them might have been found with convwatch, for most of them I have serious doubts that any test we have would have found them. It's still working with the product that is necessary. So until now I fail to see which tests could help us further without burning a lot of time. There's one excecption. I'm a big fan of convwatch and so often I asked for a *reliable* test environment that is easily configurable for arbitrary documents. So I still welcome if that could be accelerated. But even these tests shouldn't be mandatory for every CWS. > The time to master isn't a problem currently, I think. A general bugfix > CWS can be 'approved by QA' in 2 days. But that is not "time to master". It still can take a week or so on average until it's available in the master (even slower around feature freeze, faster in the last phase of a release cycle). If we had tests that let me believe that they could find more regressions early instead of just holding CWS back from approval and burning CPU time, I would welcome them. But before that we should at least be able to have these tests run on several masters without failure. This is not true for many tests now (as a quick glance on QUASTE shows). These may be bugs in the master (that have to be fixed), bugs in the tests (that also have to be fixed) or - and that would be the most unfortunate reason - something else. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
