Hi all,
Thorsten Ziehm schrieb:
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!
The time to master isn't a problem currently, I think. A general bugfix
CWS can be 'approved by QA' in 2 days. But when the master is broken,
you do not know, is the bug in the CWS or in the master. It takes longer
for checking the problems and this is what we have now. Reduce the time
to master will come, when the general quality of the master and the CWSs
is better.
So more testing on CWS is also welcome!
I second the idea of more CWS testing. Remember the new chart module.
There we had a CWS for testing and a lot of bugs were found before the
CWS was integrated in master. There is no need to spread CWS builds with
the mirrors net, but a single server witch holds the builds for Windows,
Linux and Mac is sufficient. You can free the space after the CWS is
integrated.
For most of the testing people outside, it is impossible to build CWSs
for there own, but I am sure many of them would test a CWS. They will
not test all, but those which concerns that area of OOo, which they
often use or that CWS, which contains a fix for their feature wish. In
addition, to help people to decide whether they want to test a CWS, it
is necessary to give a good, not to short description, what purpose a
CWS has.
kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
