Hi Petr,
Petr Mladek wrote (25-01-12 10:57)
Please, look at
http://download.go-oo.org/lo/lo-release-plan-in-colors.png
I recognise that one - you showed it in Paris and we discussed it. See
my slide #23 ;-)
=> developers spend a lot of time on bug fixing
Here are the commit statistics
Cor Nouws píše v Út 24. 01. 2012 v 23:10 +0100:
> Hi all,
>
> Pedro wrote (10-01-12 18:57)
> > Michael Meeks-2 wrote
>
> >>> OTH more releases means more features but also more bugs. And because new
> >>> bugs occur, old bugs are left behind.
> >>
> >>Oh ! so - this is an argument for doing a
Hi all,
Pedro wrote (10-01-12 18:57)
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
OTH more releases means more features but also more bugs. And because new
bugs occur, old bugs are left behind.
Oh ! so - this is an argument for doing a build every decade ;-)
Not really. It's just an argument that if rel
Cor Nouws wrote (15-01-12 21:05)
Hmm, am I right if I guess that the RC1 will be delayed, in the queue
behind 3.4.5 and the beta3 ?
In that case, we might want to consider to move the 2nd session one/two
weekends further on...
According to IRC/devs, RC1 still to be expected this week. Great :-)
Hi Petr, Thorsten, *
Hmm, am I right if I guess that the RC1 will be delayed, in the queue
behind 3.4.5 and the beta3 ?
In that case, we might want to consider to move the 2nd session one/two
weekends further on...
Cor Nouws wrote (15-01-12 19:41)
In any case, as it looks now, we are rathe
Cor Nouws wrote (12-01-12 23:22)
Cor Nouws wrote (09-01-12 23:10)
Find mentors "officially" and don't rely on people to show up for the
second one. It did work out on the first session, but esp. for the
follow-up event it should be sure that mentors are around.
I agree with that.
Are there
Hi all,
Cor Nouws wrote (09-01-12 23:10)
Find mentors "officially" and don't rely on people to show up for the
second one. It did work out on the first session, but esp. for the
follow-up event it should be sure that mentors are around.
I agree with that.
Are there people that can help with
Hi,
please keep in mind that I'm by no means a QA expert, but sometimes I'm good
in expressing thoughts and fears of ordinary people ;-)
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:58:48 AM Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 16:20 +0100, Nino Novak wrote:
>
> ...
>
> So - I'd love to underst
Hi Michael, all
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
>
> Actually, there is an updated patch in bugzilla's bugzilla:
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294608
>
> Unclear how to help focus minds there though :-) please do watch that
> bug (requires a login ;->) and report back
Hi Michael, all
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
>
> Ok - so this might be a good argument for keeping
> parallel-installability until later, perhaps for RC1 itself ? I'd really
> prefer to have two releases to test the real release code though :-)
>
This is a Catch 22... If it is installed in para
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 05:12:07PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:OpenID_Auth_Plugin
>
> " Should email verification process still occur?
> * There doesn't appear to be any way around it, as there's no way
> to query an OpenID server for an
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 07:12 -0800, Pedro wrote:
> I know this wasn't addressed to me, but here are my thoughts...
I always like to hear your thoughts :-)
> First of all RCs: RC releases replace the tester's stable release. I know it
> can't be otherwise.
Ok - so this might be a
Hi Pedro,
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 08:48 -0800, Pedro wrote:
> But the main obstacle IMO is the requirement to have to subscribe to yet
> another account. I have suggested elsewhere that OpenID should be adopted as
> the default identification method.
I agree.
> Most people already have an
Kohei Yoshida wrote
>
> Perhaps there is something about bugzilla and its environment that hold
> them back.
>
Bugzilla IS user unfriendly. The LO form is a great improvement over that.
But the main obstacle IMO is the requirement to have to subscribe to yet
another account. I have suggested e
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 16:22 +, Pedro Lino wrote:
> >> To be honest I'm puzzled that a program which reportedly is used by 25
> >> *million* people worldwide has half a dozen people in QA... I guess this
> >> shows a lot about human nature :(
> >
> > Could you clarify on this? I'm not sure how
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.
>
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 10:51 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> I'm the one you
> made the change
Correction: I'm the one *that* made the change
I hate typing.
--
Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail addr
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 07:12 -0800, Pedro wrote:
> OTH more releases means more features but also more bugs. And because new
> bugs occur, old bugs are left behind.
> Here is an example of what I'm talking about (and the reason why I insisted
> on giving more weight to 3.4.5 than to 3.5.0...)
> htt
Hi Michael
Michael Meeks-2 wrote
>
> So - I'd love to understand this desire for less frequent releases
> better :-) After all, we have tinderboxes churning out at least daily
> releases (in theory), perhaps several a day if we are lucky.
>
> What is the concern about having new RC'
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 16:20 +0100, Nino Novak wrote:
> Just some gut feelings from an occasional tester.
Good to understand these, thanks for sharing :-)
> First, somehow I'd personally like to have a longer period for Release
> related
> QA activities/events, at least a one-week perio
Hi Nino,
Nino Novak wrote (09-01-12 16:20)
Am Sonntag, 8. Januar 2012, 22:52:22 schrieb Cor Nouws:
Other hits/remarks of course appreciated as well :-)
Just some gut feelings from an occasional tester.
First, somehow I'd personally like to have a longer period for Release related
QA activit
Hi Christian,
Christian Lohmaier wrote (09-01-12 02:10)
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
So time to prepare bug hunt session two.
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5
and
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5#2nd_Bug-hun
Hi Pedro,
Thanks for replying. And as we wrote, I reply to the lists too.
Pedro Lino wrote (09-01-12 01:34)
So time to prepare bug hunt session two.
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5
and
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5#2nd_Bug-hu
Hi Cor,
Am Sonntag, 8. Januar 2012, 22:52:22 schrieb Cor Nouws:
> Other hits/remarks of course appreciated as well :-)
Just some gut feelings from an occasional tester.
First, somehow I'd personally like to have a longer period for Release related
QA activities/events, at least a one-week peri
Hi Cor,
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Cor Nouws wrote:
>
> So time to prepare bug hunt session two.
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5
> and
>
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5#2nd_Bug-hunting_session
>
> Or is there something that
Hi all,
So time to prepare bug hunt session two.
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5
and
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Improving_QA-Release-3.5#2nd_Bug-hunting_session
Or is there something that should make us change our mind for that?
As far as I've been
26 matches
Mail list logo
