Hi Sophie,
thanks for the quick answer :-)
further remarks/explanations:
Am 20.03.2013 14:46, schrieb Sophie Gautier:
On 20/03/2013 14:09, Nino Novak wrote:
Q1: Is it correct that Moztrap is ready and should be used for manual
testing? Is Litmus definitively obsolete? (there are several lin
Hi Nino,
On 20/03/2013 14:09, Nino Novak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> recently we had a short discussion about manual testing in the
> Germanophone list with some questions left.
>
> Q1: Is it correct that Moztrap is ready and should be used for manual
> testing? Is Litmus definitively obsolete? (there a
Hi all,
recently we had a short discussion about manual testing in the
Germanophone list with some questions left.
Q1: Is it correct that Moztrap is ready and should be used for manual
testing? Is Litmus definitively obsolete? (there are several links from
the wiki to Litmus)
Q2: I did not
free but because it is a valid
alternative ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-manual-testing-tp3774646p3782471.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
List Name: Libreoffice-q
On 27/02/2012, libreoffice-qa-requ...@lists.freedesktop.org
wrote:
> --
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:37:25 -0800 (PST)
> From: Pedro
>
> Rimas Kudelis wrote
>>
>> I don't know why you assume it's a Windows-only tool then. Don't you
>> have a web browser i
rowser. It still
supports my initial affirmation that I don't know any Windows specific tool
:)
I'm glad other people also agree on OpenID. I wish this was broadly adopted
by the LibreOffice sites and domains :)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Li
Hello,
2012.02.27 13:30, Pedro wrote:
Sophie Gautier wrote
No, Litmus is an online tool to manage manual test cases.
-snip-
It's really simple to use for the tester, he just has to reproduce what
he is reading on the Litmus site into LibreOffice and then mark the test
as passed, skip or faile
feel like
registering to yet another site (I have already registered to three mailing
lists, the Nabble site and the wiki)
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-manual-testing-tp3774646p3780394.html
Sent from
On 27/02/2012 11:44, Pedro wrote:
Sophie Gautier wrote
Just a note, the tests that we run under Litmus are for all systems, you
can find them here
https://tcm.documentfoundation.org/
anybody is invited to participate in English or in his mother language,
no problem.
Oops, wrong example :)
B
But still, it isn't a tool to be run _under_ Windows (from my understanding
of Litmus, I confess I haven't tried it)
Regards,
Pedro
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-manual-testing-tp3774646p3780255.html
Sent from the QA mai
Hi,
On 25/02/2012 10:19, Pedro wrote:
e-letter wrote
Recent comments in the 'users' mailing list indicate that manual
testing is insufficient. What is the procedure to expand the quantity
and quality of manual tests?
To improve software quality, especially with reference to regression
of prev
elp is welcome ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-manual-testing-tp3774646p3774658.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: L
Readers,
Recent comments in the 'users' mailing list indicate that manual
testing is insufficient. What is the procedure to expand the quantity
and quality of manual tests?
To improve software quality, especially with reference to regression
of previous bugs, a selection of manual tests based upo
13 matches
Mail list logo
