Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi there,

On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 06:57 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote:
    So - I tend to think that time will tell if we need to change this. The
seven day period seems long to me. 

Seven days is a not so long period when you have to organize manual testing.
As you can see with OOo 3.3.0 the last stoppers have been found by

        Sure :-) but what concerns me is the reset of seven days with no bug;
so we find one bug, and we then reset the seven days of testing when we
have included only a trivial fix ? if so, that seems like wasted time to
me. There comes a point when the negatives (of holding back all the
improvements and bug fixes in the new release) outweigh the positives of
waiting until it is perfect :-) Having a hard rule of no blocker bug for
seven days after the last RC seems to ~ignore the other half of that
balance.

Perhaps, if micro releases are really only bug fix.
But that need to be clearly explained to the users and sys-admin in
charge of deployment of LibO.

        True.

It is very important that the user installing the next release of LibO
can say: Oh there is less bug in LibO than in ...

        Heh - and of course we have to be careful about that.

        Thanks !

                Michael.

-- 
 michael.meeks@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot



Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.