On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 12:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > My recollection is that the email for voting on the release said the >> > vote would run till tomorrow - but it sounds like formal testing is not >> > finished till Monday. >> > >> > Should the final vote not wait till after the testing is finished? >> > >> >> Not necessarily. Just because someone calls their tests "formal" does >> not mean we need to wait for them. My tests are just as valid as your >> test or anyone else's tests. >> >> I think we can move ahead, if the PPMC vote passes, and start the IPMC >> process. Of course, if at any time someone finds a showstopper >> issue, we can cancel the vote, at any stage. Even if a showstopper >> issue is found after the IPMC vote and minutes before we announce, we >> can still recall the release. There is no train on autopilot here. >> > > Ah ok - and your opinion on the specific of this question about the > current release is - Yes, wait for Monday or No, don't wait? >
My opinion: 1) There is no limit to how much testing we can do on a release. Any decision to end testing is arbitrary. We could always take more time and do more kinds of tests, in more variations. 2) The proposal of this release candidate and the timing of it should not be surprising to any member of the community. It has been the primary topic of conversation on this list for nearly a month. 3) Just as it is the responsibility of every programmer to get their code submitted in time for the RC, and for every translator to get their translations submitted in time for the RC, it is the responsibility of ever tester to get their tests done in time. 4) If anyone thought that there were critical tests that must be performed, but these tests could not be performed before the release vote ended, then they should have spoken up quite a long time ago. 5) We're currently holding back fixes from our users, some quite critical, by delaying the release. We gain absolutely nothing by delaying the vote. If we delay and nothing is found then we've wasted time. If we don't delay and we find a bug then we go back and cut a new Release Candidate. But we should we assume that further testing is going to find a show stopping bug? That doesn't make sense to me. > I would wait. > And what if I said I had even more tests that I wanted to run, but they would take two weeks more? -Rob > Thanks > > ps - just forget I used the word formal in the question, if that helps. > >> -Rob >> >> > Thanks >> > >> > //drew >> > >> > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 23:33 +0800, Ji Yan wrote: >> >> We did RC build test against RC2 rev. 1372282. Here is the report >> >> 1. BVT passed [1] >> >> 2. PVT is done [2] >> >> 3. Automation FVT passed [3] >> >> 4. Installation test complete [4] >> >> 5. General testing is done [5] >> >> 6. Native build testing [6] >> >> >> >> We are doing long run testing this weekend, and I'll bring the report next >> >> Monday. >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/BVT#BVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282 >> >> [2] >> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_PVTResult#PVT_report_on_3.4.1_RC1_r1372282 >> >> [3] >> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/FVT#FVT_Report_for_AOO3.4.1_Branch_r1372282 >> >> [4] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Installer_2 >> >> [5] http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Rev._1372282 >> >> [6] >> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/AOO341_RC_TestResult#Native_Build_Testing >> > >> > >> > >
