[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ef2 == ef2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ef2 If you want that more people test the beta versions, you need to
consider ef2 the human psychology : the more the figure will be big,
the more people will ef2 want to try the distribution. I even suggested
after 9.1 to lie about
john == John Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi
john What is needed is a committed (and known) BETA, RC
john testers. Each one committed to testing a know set of
john functionality (hardware software), and regression issues.
But that things are already fixed in the Betas RC.
Problem is
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:40:54PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
john == John Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi
john What is needed is a committed (and known) BETA, RC
john testers. Each one committed to testing a know set of
john functionality (hardware software), and regression
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:59, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
Why doesn't mandrake try to figure out WHY less people are testing cooker
than they'd like instead of blindly blaming people that THEY don't test
enough so therefore mandrake is buggy
Mandrake is the one trying to make money doing
Le Jeudi 23 Octobre 2003 14:12, Dave Cotton a écrit :
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:59, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
Why doesn't mandrake try to figure out WHY less people are testing cooker
than they'd like instead of blindly blaming people that THEY don't test
enough so therefore mandrake is
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
Problem is that majority of the people don't test until the last RC or
Final :( Bugs reported during cooker Betas are normally fixed.
Well, to me the only test I'm interested in doing is a complete install from
iso images (on CDRW disks), this
On Thursday 23 October 2003 12:40, Juan Quintela wrote:
john == John Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi
john What is needed is a committed (and known) BETA, RC
john testers. Each one committed to testing a know set of
john functionality (hardware software), and regression issues.
But
ef2 == ef2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi
ef2 I think that we need a lot more RCs, and on the contrary they should be more
ef2 frequent, a lot more frequent. Updating a cooker machine is not the same
ef2 than installing the distribution from scratch, considering the updating
ef2 scripts do not
ef2 == ef2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ef2 If you want that more people test the beta versions, you need to
consider ef2 the human psychology : the more the figure will be big,
the more people will ef2 want to try the distribution. I even suggested
after 9.1 to lie about the ef2 actual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| And then what do you do for the next release? Start at RC3, up to RC5?
|
| The only solution is to make people who are going to report bugs do it by
| RC1 at the latest.
|
| Maybe there should be a policy on bugs ... bugzilla
On Thursday 23 October 2003 04:04 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe there should be a policy on bugs ... bugzilla should not allow new
bug submissions from when RC2 is released ;-).
This would be great if there were no new bugs introduced in the rc's, but as
9.2 clearly made plain, new bugs
11 matches
Mail list logo
