On 15/08/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
A thought experiment: If we ran the existing test automation on
4.0.0, how many of the bugs that we're fixing in 4.0.1 do you think
would be detected?
I would expect this 4.0.1 blocker issue (wrong results in certain Calc
functions) to be detectable by automated
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/15/13 1:33 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/15/13 12:19 PM, janI wrote:
On Aug 15, 2013 11:14 AM, "Jürgen Schmidt" wrote:
>
> On 8/14/13 8:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
On 8/15/13 1:33 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 8/15/13 12:19 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 2013 11:14 AM, "Jürgen Schmidt" wrote:
On 8/14/13 8:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, janI wrote:
>> On 14 Aug
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 8/15/13 12:19 PM, janI wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2013 11:14 AM, "Jürgen Schmidt" wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/14/13 8:30 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, janI wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 19:36, Edwin Sharp wrote:
>
>>
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Edwin Sharp wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 22:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Finally, I think we can all point to a similar open source project
>> that has numerous betas, but still suffers from poor quality. So a
>> public beta, by itself, is not sufficient. W
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 22:58, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> Finally, I think we can all point to a similar open source project
> that has numerous betas, but still suffers from poor quality. So a
> public beta, by itself, is not sufficient. We need some upstream
> improvements as well, I think. But w
Am 08/14/2013 09:58 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 08/14/2013 09:01 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:
Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp wrote:
Dear Rob
The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 08/14/2013 09:01 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:
>
>> Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp wrote:
Dear Rob
The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller st
Am 08/14/2013 09:01 PM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:
Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp wrote:
Dear Rob
The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps.
Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release
candidates s
Am 14.08.13 20:21, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp wrote:
Dear Rob
The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps.
Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates
should not be avoided.
TestLink cases should be le
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM, janI wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 19:36, Edwin Sharp wrote:
>
>> Dear Rob
>> The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps.
>> Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates
>> should not be avoided.
>> TestLink ca
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edwin Sharp wrote:
> Dear Rob
> The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps.
> Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates
> should not be avoided.
> TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of f
I apologize in advance if my note was note clear. I'm not at all
interested in off-the-cuff opinions. We all have our opinions. But
I'm only interested in fact-based analysis of the actual regressions
reported in BZ. Specifically: what caused the actually defects that
ended up in 4.0.0 and wh
On 14 August 2013 19:36, Edwin Sharp wrote:
> Dear Rob
> The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps.
> Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates
> should not be avoided.
> TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature c
Dear Rob
The 4.0 release was too ambitious - we should advance in smaller steps.
Nothing compares to general public testing - betas and release candidates
should not be avoided.
TestLink cases should be less comprehesive (in terms of feature coverage) and
more stress testing oriented.
Regards,
Ed
We're working now on AOO 4.0.1, to fix defects in AOO 4.0.0. The fact
that we're doing this, and their are no arguments against it, shows
that we value quality. I'd like to take this a step further, and see
what we can learn from the defects in AOO 4.0.0 and what we can do
going forward to impro
16 matches
Mail list logo
