Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice and Windows 2000

Hi Petr, all > Isn't it possible to check for OS version and suggest the LO version > > accordingly? > > > > This would be a good test for the upcoming EOL of Windows XP, in less > than a > > year from now :) > > It makes sense. Could you please report this into bugzilla and add > ke...@suse.cz in

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] Moztrap evaluation online!

Hi Yifan, all Please remove my email from any LibreOffice QA related subjects. I no longer collaborate with QA. I have downgraded myself to "plain user". Thanks! Regards to all, Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 3.5.1 Online Update testing

Good morning Kendy, all I am terribly sorry, I messed the description of the test; I wanted to > ask you to install 3.5.2 RC1 (3.5.2.1), and wrote 3.5.1 RC1 instead :-( > Can you please try with 3.5.2 RC1? That should offer you an update to > the 3.5.2 RC2 (and point to the pre-release download s

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Investigating Caseconductor for next QA call

Hi Sophie, all I'm not Pedro or Rimas, but I would have time to have a look for the end > of next week. If you think I'm not enough skilled, no problem. > Excellent! You are certainly more skilled, experienced and knowledgeable about OOo/LO than I am. Thank you for jumping in! Regards, Pedro __

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.2 RC2 test builds available

Hi all, Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia > reports problem) > > I think Secunia has already fixed the numbering so that the warning it gone for version 3.5.1. But the Version number in the file Properties for 3.5.2rc2 is now 3.5.0.202 instead of 3.5.2.2 Unless t

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.2 RC2 test builds available

Hi Christian Did anyone verify that the version info is updated (re the secunia > reports problem) > http://ask.libreoffice.org/question/1459/secunia-psi-reports-insecure > also on the mailinglists) > > i.e. version info of soffice.exe, not the one in the about dialog. > I didn't check that and n

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Regressions in Open Source projects ...

Hi Petr, all Please, do not take this that we do not take care about openSUSE/SUSE > users. We do a lot of things for them. It is only about my packaging > work and about that I underestimated the demand for 3.5. > Actually I was talking about SUSE LibreOffice for Windows (which is apparently a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Regressions in Open Source projects ...

Hi Michael, all I'm looking at another few Windows specific bugs that > are of interest. Particularly with the new drmemory tool and Jesus' > windows / debug builds - we should be able to progress here quickly. > It'd be wonderful if we could get these traces for Windows specific > bugs. > I'm qu

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.4.6 RC2 test builds available

Hi Rainer, all It's my belief that we will have to rethink our release concept. > It is true that this model tends to accumulate regressions. Unfortunately it is not easy to measure if adding more features is attracting more users than repelling users because of regressions/unsolved problems...

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] tag for bugs related to experimental turned on/off

Hi Cor, all So an easy and sort of logic solution is to have an option to turn Macro > recording of for those that want that. > I think I can take this one > Do you mean you are going to add an option to enable Macro separately from the rest of the experimental features? That is great! "How

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 3.5.1 Online Update testing

Hi Kendy Working perfectly under Win XP Pro x86 SP3, except that the Pre-release page still shows RC1... http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ Regards, Pedro On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > Hi there, > > Please, is here anybody who can check whether the 3.5

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] credits for people doing QA

Hi Nino, all Having "false-positives" ist bad, of course. > > But IMO false-negatives are worse :-/ > Couldn't agree more :) There were at least 3 guys that were particularly helpful on the second Bug Hunting Session while I was online (probably there were many more). I thanked them publicly on

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] credits for people doing QA

Hi klaus-jürgen, all They get their own credit points as you can see on the credit list. It > won't be a direct QA point but it is a counting one. Well, then that list needs to be updated more frequently so that people actually see their name on it after a new release (I find it a little absurd

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer

Hi Rimas, all I think you'd just have to choose which label to use. Correctly matching > key names with the keyboard model is hardly impossible. I would say you'd > just have to choose whether to use Inserir or Insert, and stick to that > choice. Which strings you would choose would be completely

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer

Hi Stefan, all > All we should need is localised versions of key names like Ctrl, Del, > Ins (that are on almost every keyboard [1], but whose names can > change) and global versions of key names for > alphanumeric/script-specific keys (which might not be on every > keyboard, but whose names are

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] weird shortcut key for repeat action in Writer

Hi Michael, all Well - I guess the -idea- is prolly to try to show the user the key > that is written on their keyboard, rather than a generic 'Ctrl' for > Control - it can show 'Control' (if that is what is written there) or > somesuch. > I think it would make sense for different countri

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 3.5.0 QA ... from BHS 1 to BHS 2

Hi Kohei > The truth is that different people have different pet peeve bugs they > want backported to 3.4.x, and we can't respond to all of them because > it's extra work.  Backporting a change is not free, someone has to > review the change and make sure that change won't introduce regressions. >

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANNOUNCE] libreoffice-3.4.5.2 tag created (3.4.5-rc2)

> do you mean 3.4.5-rc1 ? No. That was almost a month ago :) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ANNOUNCE-libreoffice-3-4-5-1-tag-created-3-4-5-rc1-tt3585973.html ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Online update service up & running

Hi Kendy, all > JFYI - the service that warns you that there is a newer LibreOffice > version out is up & running, and when you have Beta1, it should inform > you about the availability of Beta2, and offer you to redirect to its > download page. > > Should there be troubles with this, please repor

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] problems installing LibO-Dev_3.5.0beta2_Win_x86

This is a quick answer (I'm on a very slow connection) The error message means that LO Quickstart is running (you must have version 3.4.4 or any other stable version installed, maybe even 3.4.5RC1). The detection method correctly detects that LO is already running but unfortunately it does not ide

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Remark wrt the bug-hunt session

Hi Cor, all I'm sorry to say that I will not be available for the Bug Hunting session. I will be on extremely limited (if any) internet connection starting from today. I know I'm still a newbie but it's one pair of (inexperienced) hands less. > Our announcement gets pretty some attention, so we m

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] QA/BugHunting Session 3.5.0.-1 Bug with PDF saving

Hi Yaroslav 2011/12/21 Павлов Ярослав : > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15798117/123.ogv > Some bug in 3.4.* versions > In 3.3.* all works great. Fantastic use of ogv! Played directly in my Firefox 9.0 :) This is a known bug and apparently was fixed today in Master and the patch will be picked for 3.4

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs in Portable LibO Versions

> I do not know at all how bug fixes for Portable LibO Builds will be > proceeded. I believe hints in > are not > useful. > > What do you think? Are there any specific Portable LO errors? I assume that the Portable version works 100%

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Please do not submit Bug reports concerning 3.5 Beta0

The builds available for Linux at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ are only 2.3Mb in size... Is this normal? The Windows and Mac are over 190 and 200Mb... -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Please do not submit Bug reports concerning 3.5 Beta0

While Beta1 is already available at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ the page still mentions Beta0. Can someone fix that, please? -- Pedro ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org C

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Minutes - QA related - TSC call 2011-12-05

> The page says ... >    Not a problem, we will get 3.4.5 with fix for that >    before 3.5. May be a hint "we recomment to update from >    3.4.4 to 3.5.5 before update to 3.5 > > I wonder if the reference to 3.5.5 should be 3.4.5? > > Always ready to pick a nit, > Terry. Easier to fix than to re

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] split links, word import issue?

>> I created a document xx.odt with a link.  Then I saved the link as >> xx.doc.  Then opened xx.doc and found that the single original link was >> split into several links, each link for one word or space from the >> original link label (see xx3.odt). >> >> It looks like the algorithm for word imp

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Crash in Impress in slideshow mode with linked movie ?

>        On the other hand, windows being windows & hence #$%#$5ing useless has > no means for us to get a stack trace that might help with debugging. Mind your language! :) >        Tor / Pedro - is there documentation for Windows for how to get a stack > trace for our Betas ? and/or can we get

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Crash in Impress in slideshow mode with linked movie ?

> it seems that Impress in LO 3.5.0 crashes under *MS-Windows* in > slideshow mode when you try to show a slide with a linked movie (menu > Insert -> Movie and Sound...). Yes. I can confirm that, although I couldn't find the Bug report. Impress crashes instantly when switching to Slideshow mode.

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] QA ideas for 3.5 WAS Re: [Libreoffice] Improving the QA and Release for 3.5

>> If you feel good about the beta1 build, > > > My feeling about it is positive. What do others think? I think that especially for the Windows platform it was an incredible evolution since a couple of months ago (when it wasn't even possible to successfully compile) to arrive at this almost stabl

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Which nightly/daily build should be used?

Hi Petr >> I repeat my previous question: Is it important for testing purposes >> how many/which repositories are used? > > I think that it does not mater. Every build has advantages and > disadvantages. Thank you for the detailed answer. I will stick to the newly uploaded Beta1 for the moment un

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech. steering call ...)

>> Executed File, Wizard, Letter. LOdev crashed. > >        Gosh; when you say 'crashed' - it took down the whole office suite ? > that is a pretty horrendous existing bug it'd be nice to fix. Yep. I would say so :) >> Conclusion >> LO 3.4.4 works like a charm but won't detect Java 7; > >        

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech. steering call ...)

Hi all > Would be great if somebody could check Java 7 more thoroughly, for both > upcoming LO 3.4.5 and 3.5. Some findings about Java 7 under Win XP Pro x86 SP3: Uninstalled Java 6 rev 29. Run LO 3.4.4. Executed File, Wizard, Letter. Reported missing Java Run LOdev 3.5.0 Build ID: f923851-7f15f

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions

Hi Petr > IMHO, community can't support too many stable versions. Customers who > need it, have to pay someone for it. We should leave 3.3 and concentrate > on making 3.5 the best release ever. I couldn't agree more. But someone made up this concept of "rock solid" and "Enterprise ready". To make

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Which nightly/daily build should be used?

The problem arises again: For Beta0 testing Petr Mladek suggests getting the latest from http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/ (this machine builds and uploads quite frequently) Thorsten Behrens suggests http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases (th

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions

Hi Michael >        Seems that Eike picked this to -3-4 shortly after you mentioned it ;-) > of course, if there are more annoying, but trivial / obvious fixes we > need to get into 3.4.5 it'd be great to know ASAP - the freeze for 3.4.5 > RC1 is early next week, and I'd really like not to see ~an

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions

Hi Korrawit, all > So, what should we do to each group of bugs? Anyway, I'm not sure > whether there are how many bugs in each group, or even there is any > bug in some group. Maybe we need separate discussion? This isn't simply a matter of checking and reporting bugs. It involves the Quality of

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)

> We are not speaking about putting *only* the timestamp(s) as > *only* identifier, only to give them as an added information for human > convenience, not as things scripts would use as unique identifier. That is exactly the point. Quoting a previous answer to Norbert "> it is less reliable and a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Call for LO-3.5.0-beta1 pre-tag testing

Hi Andras > You use your Windows with an administrator account. It is not > recommended, however I know that many people do this.  Therefore > LibreOffice can write into its own Program Files folder. This is how all personal Windows XP PCs work. Only in companies/schools/etc does it work differen

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)

> sure. but then how do you known 'when' a given fix was pushed ? (and > bear in mind timezone :-)) Ah, yes! You were talking about the fix pushes. With your script? :) > for dailies: to download it you already have all that info since > otherwise you would not have found the file to start with.

[Libreoffice-qa] End of the line for 3.3 family and regressions

Hi all Looking at the Release Plan chart http://tdfsc.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/libreoffice-versions.png and wiki http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan I guess version 3.3.4 is the end of the line for family 3.3. This means that for many users (and especially for companies, which only

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)

> I know, I did it... but you don't have a 'push time' :) Thank you, then :) Why do I need to know the push time? Any commits that were pushed into Central repository before time X are included in the source that is pulled after time X... I think? >> And Petr Vladek has suggested that this info s

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)

Hi Norbert > the problem is that this 'time' is not recorded anywhere. git does not > keep track of it. I have the pull time because the tinderbox code was kindly modified to provide a log file for each build E.g. http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/Win-x86@6-fast/libreoffice-3-5/current/lib

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Call for LO-3.5.0-beta1 pre-tag testing

Hi all > could you please do some testing with the last daily builds from the > libreoffice-3-5 branch? See below where to get them. > > It would be great if you replay this mail and describe your feeling. > Please mention the git commit IDs from the about dialog from the tested > build. We might

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [bjoern.michael...@canonical.com: [Libreoffice] What is bibisect? And what is it doing in my office?]

>  http://people.canonical.com/~bjoern/bibisect-3.5.lzma > > contains: > >  - 53 complete office installs between the creation of the core repo and the >   -3-5 branchoff (thats >5000 commits) >  - at 450MB each, that would be ~22GB total >  - however, it is only 749MB total download size, thats <1

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)

> But developers don't commit to the central repository. They commit to > their local "clones" of it, and then at some (much) later stage push > outstanding commits to the central repository. And then there are > feature branches and merges... Ok. Wrong wording. What I meant was "the time a change

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)

Hi Michael >> There isn't a 3.4.5 branch yet so I assume this can be tested on the >> master ? The latest Win daily is from Dec 7th so it probably doesn't >> include that fix? > >        Yes - you can test either on master or a libreoffice-3-4 build (RC1 > will be coming next week or so I think).

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: minutes of tech. steering call ...)

Hi Tor, all Thank you for all the replies > Added where? You need to realise that we use a *distributed* version > control system, git, and time stamps are not important, as far as I > understand it. Yes, I do realize. They still are important if you are using daily builds from the central repos

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Java 7 support in LO 3.4.5 (was: [Libreoffice] minutes of tech. steering call ...)

> Support for Java 7 (both Linux and Windows) is now also enabled for the > upcoming LO 3.4.5.  I just checked on Linux that a JRE 1.7.0_01 can be > enabled on the "Tools - Options... - LibreOffice - Java" tab page, and that > "File - Wizards - Letter..." (which uses Java) looks reasonable. > > Wou

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment

Hi Petr, * > It was not intended for wide functional testing. It helped to find > exactly the problems that it was supposed to find. > > It is clear that we should have used the name "alphaX". Well, the plan > was public and nobody protested against the "beta0" name ;-) You seem to be taking the

[Libreoffice-qa] Which nightly/daily build should be used?

Hi guys Apparently both MSVC Windows Tinderboxes are fixed. Thank you and kudos to whoever did it ;) Since any fixes until now will be included in the upcoming Beta1 we can use the Dailies for testing (instead of the horrible Beta0 :) ) My question is: is it better to use the #6 builds which hav

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment

> We plan to do the beta builds as dev builds, so they will be installed > in parallel with the stable release. Excellent news! Is this going to be included on the first Public Beta which is scheduled for today? > Though, the release candidates are going to replace the stable releases > on Window

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] RESET - BACK button text and function interchanged

> No, I disagree. Some dialogs have varioust TABs, and if you only want to > undo edits in one of them, it's nice to have the Back button; after a > "Cancel" you would have to do again the edits you need. I can see your point. But then the button should be simply named "Undo" not "Back". "Back" is

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] RESET - BACK button text and function interchanged

Hi Rainer Since you asked not to discuss on the Bug Tracker here is my opinion: The function "Back" doesn't make any sense. If the idea is to Undo the values that you changed and you haven't Saved then you already have the Cancel button. If the goal is to return to LO default values then the use

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

> No, my idea was to put the above text in the about box, to replace our > current 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-... string. Oh, I see! But then it would be easier to use the "pretty printing date" instead of having 2 strings to compare for each repository. That would be a nice improvement. What I was proposin

[Libreoffice-qa] Can't paste formulas between 3.4.4 and 3.5.0

Hi guys I was copying cells between two open spreadsheets, one in 3.4.4 final and another on LibO-dev 3.5.0 ( a286353-090bcba-3bf3b94) aka master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35 from Win-x86@6 When I pasted a cell containing a formula, it got pasted as the resulting value. This happens both ways.

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

Hi Lionel > Git commit IDs as identifiers have the huge problem that they are not > comparable (one cannot say which one is "greater") without referring > to the repository. How about we also put the *commit* (not author) > timestamp (in UTC) of the top node (commit), and maybe the branch? That w

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

> No need to know. It is just a random (or not so random) sequence of > hex digits. If nothing documents it to have some significance, don't > assume it to have any significance. Thank you for the clarification. It does have some significance. >> Anyway, even if this was a combination of the GIT

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

Hi Korrawit > That is, if your 4f11d0a is the first group of IDs in About box, it's > the core repository's commit ID. Yes, obviously. Sorry for the confusion. I thought Andras was referring to the single 8 letter/number code added to the Windows install folder name. Where does that come from? E

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Insert -> fields -> others dialog : button close does not work on master

> On my build of the master (Build ID: > 2c09f50-43e9388-090bcba-3bf3b94-05891e7 on Ubuntu 10.04 x86_64) the > button "Close" in the dialog Insert -> Fields -> Other... (Ctrl+F2) does > nothing. Other buttons (Insert and Help) work as expected. The only way > to close the dialog is to click the cro

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

Hi again Andras > We have 5 repositories now: core, binfilter, dictionaries, help, and > translations. Therefore there are 5 git commit IDs in the About box > separated by dashes. These are good identifiers of the build, at least > these uniquely identify the source code that the build was made fr

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment

> I think the latest Master builds before Beta has been splitted were > in an acceptable shape for a Beta. I have just uninstalled Beta0 because I need my 3.4.4 functional. Not only because I actually use it to WORK but I also need some comparison to check for regressions... Is it reasonable to a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

Hi Andras Thank you for your quick and enlightening reply! > LibreOffice 3.5 will not unpack anything to desktop. But we can't > change the past... :) Fair enough :) > You can check what's included and what's not, when you visit > for example > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/

[Libreoffice-qa] Naming builds. Please???

Hi all This is my final request about this subject. Can you please make some sense out of the version naming convention? I was about to reinstall version 3.4.4 (after it was overwritten by 3.5.0 Beta0) and I already had an unpacked install folder on my desktop. The only way I could verify that i

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibO 3.5.0 Beta 0 First assessment

> As posted already yesterday, it is not unlikely that beta1 will have about > the same troubles. If so, those will be fixed before beta2, which will make > that version fine for larger testing. Really??? Not _unlikely_? The Devs are actually going to release a Public Beta in this state? I hope

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.5.0 beta0 available

May I add to the known limitations listed below that the Icon showing on the program window for all applications in Windows is the StarOffice 5.2 icon? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42979 Although this has been dismissed as cosmetic, it is a regression from 3.4 and it is a major fu

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Tinderbox status

Excellent! Thank you all for the answers ;) Now onto some real bug swatting :) ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Pro

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Tinderbox status

>> So if Tinderbox #9 finished successfully 2 days ago with 176 errors >> and today with 846(!!!), doesn't that sound suspicious? > Yes, it does - but only if it is the same machine, the same builder. > In your initial post you were comparing different builders, and there > it is rather irrelevant

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Tinderbox status

Hi Christian >> I.e. does the number of errors >> potentially affect the quality and reliability of the binaries? > > Not necessarily. But it would be suspicious if for example the Mac > ones that are below 10 "errors" suddenly spike to 50 or more and still > be green. Then it is worth to have a l

[Libreoffice-qa] Tinderbox status

Hi guys I'm glad to see that the Win Tinderboxes are finishing successfully again. One question: the MinGW finished with 220 errors while on 11-30 it managed to build with 16 errors; the MSVC Win_9 machine finished successfully with 846(!) errors but the previous successful build was managed by W

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Windows tinderbox: Windows 2008R2

Hi Rainer > and we should try to waste as few as many time as possible. For me it's > annoying to have to check every day various folders whether we have new > builds. currently I mostly search in vain, and sometimes I find something I > can't use; You can speedup the process by looking into http

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Libreoffice] New Windows tinderbox: Windows 2008R2

Hi all > b) it's probably possible to provide zip/xz/whatever archives of nightly > builds along with the installer. This would allow you to test everything > except installation of LibO, having as many parallel LibreOffices as you > need. I think this is the best option. It is used in several FL

[Libreoffice-qa] QA ideas for 3.5

Hi all I agree with the proposed plans (especially the early testing concept) and the bug-hunting sessions which are indeed a great idea. I think that the most important aspects are: 1) make sure the dates are quite visible (more so than the prizes) 2) make sure you have at least one person sup