Sophie wrote (18-01-10 21:32)
Hi all,
Rafaella Braconi wrote:
It's not really written for the purpose I meant. The second part of
that wiki page could be developed into that kind of instructions,
though.
For me we can either start editing the second part or create a new
wiki. Whatever work
Sure.
Lp, m.
2010/1/18 Sophie
> Hi all,
>
> Rafaella Braconi wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not really written for the purpose I meant. The second part of that
>>> wiki page could be developed into that kind of instructions, though.
>>>
>>
>> For me we can either start editing the second part or create a
Hi all,
Rafaella Braconi wrote:
It's not really written for the purpose I meant. The second part of
that wiki page could be developed into that kind of instructions, though.
For me we can either start editing the second part or create a new wiki.
Whatever works for you best.
Martin, I'll s
It's not really written for the purpose I meant. The second part of
that wiki page could be developed into that kind of instructions, though.
For me we can either start editing the second part or create a new wiki.
Whatever works for you best.
Rafaella
It's not really written for the purpose I meant. The second part of that
wiki page could be developed into that kind of instructions, though.
Lp, m.
2010/1/18 Rafaella Braconi
> Hi Martin,
>
>
> On 01/18/10 12:02, Martin Srebotnjak wrote:
>
>> Loba,
>>
>> a lot of l10n people trying to start wo
Hi Martin,
On 01/18/10 12:02, Martin Srebotnjak wrote:
Loba,
a lot of l10n people trying to start working on qa are confused, because
there are only documents about every single tool (QATrack, QUASTe, TCM, EIS,
VLCTestTool) but there is not one overall, comprehensive document explaining
the sug
Loba,
a lot of l10n people trying to start working on qa are confused, because
there are only documents about every single tool (QATrack, QUASTe, TCM, EIS,
VLCTestTool) but there is not one overall, comprehensive document explaining
the suggested work flow for QA-process of l10n packages with poin
Hello,
Here arises some confusion about submitting the TCM report URI in the
QAtrack of different builds. For .rpm and .deb packages there is only one
test case in TCM of Openoffice.
For my language (bn) i have added the same TCM report URI [0] for both the
builds of .rpm and .deb, fortunately the
