Jan Holesovsky schrieb:
Adding the QA guys - from my point of view, the nightly should be as
close to our 'normal' installation as possible (ie. .msi), so that the
QA guys can see installation problems early too. But up to them do
decide, I guess.
Hi,
that all is a little true for particular tester's preferences. I usually
do server installations (msiexec /a) and modify bootstrap.ini to an
existing LibOdev profile, what has been copied from my normal
installation profile. So I have a realistic test environment. I think
that would also be possible with zip, and I already did so with MinGW
builds sometimes. I saw few installer problems, so I believe .ZIPs as
daily builds would not have bigger disadvantages.
For occasional testers the simple "installation" of zips (using their
individual own profile) even might be favorable, so someone has the
possibility to test a fix for a particular problem with a master build
without need to learn anything about parallel installation or similar.
Most times that worked well for me with MinGW builds, what came very
reliable every day, but currently source has run dry? We will discuss
those needs additionally during German QA-Weekend.
An Additional advantage of master.zip builds might be that we could
invite interested WIN users to see and test new features very early.
For me that "quick and easy" is less important because I have to do some
"administration overhead" to keep overview for the lots of versions.
Very interesting for me (and may be 5 ... 10 other "power testers" would
be some kind of feed / newsletter or whatever with "New build from
Tinderbx @xx available"
Best regards
Rainer
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
