Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 02/27/2012 01:37 AM, e-letter wrote:

For those people that consider high quality software to be of highest
priority, more important than new features, please help to perform
quality assurance manual software tests.

There is a web page which describes manual testing: Clearly,
there are insufficient testers...

IMPORTANT: Obsoleted by Litmus

Litmus is a useful tool for organizing manual tests. Please, help us to
migrate all these test cases there and remove them from this wiki page.

So why even point 'users' to that page?

Please also subscribe to the quality assurance mailing list:

There are many bugs that seem to occur after so-called "upgrade".
People who make the effort to report bugs: please consider how
important each bug is. If it is of major importance, the ability to
remove the bug must become part of the quality assurance manual test,
i.e. the software version is not passed as good quality until that bug
is removed.

Testing for the success in solving the bug needs to be approved by
using 'litmus' ( So, the behaviour
that caused the bug needs to be recorded and entered into litmus.

This should prevent regression bugs and improve software quality in
the long-term.

Cool. Have you *actually* installed 3.5.1rc1 (as noted in the litmus test)?
Description:    Test run for *3.5.1 RC* regression testing. Please use
*3.5.1 RC* build to test the cases in this run.

If you did (and you'd need to find it someplace other than: and (currently) only
you'd find that the install (at least on a debian linux system) smokes
your existing 3.5.0 install (remember 3.5.0 is the released version).

So, while I (we?) appreciate your efforts to get users on this "user"
list as pre-release testers, I'd be overly cautious about asking "users"
on this list to perform litmus tests... At least not without explaining
in *detail* what is required, and how to avoid existing LO standard
installations being blown away by a pre-release version.

IMO it's probably better for 'users' on this list to wait to
test/participate when
actually shows a pre-release version. *And* testers understand the
implications of testing. This will avoid the "LO blew up my thesis" and
wiped out all of my exisiting templates/files/settings. (Note: I'm not
making light of those that do report such, but instead trying to avoid
such reports here in the first place as they are *serious* issues & can
happen if you don't understand what you are doing when you "test".)

Gary Lee

For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.