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

On 02/29/2012 03:14 AM, e-letter wrote:
On 29/02/2012, NoOp <sniprudeemailquotefrome-letter-fixyourclient> wrote:
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?

The initial purpose is to promote the existence of QA testing, both in
terms of the history (the wiki) and the future (litmus).

And if the manual test is obsolete & LO wish to migrate everyone to the
litmus test page instead you think it's a good idea to direct users on
this list to that page? Seems a bit odd to me.

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.

No, there are no new features of personal interest.

Well you've got me there... You are asking everyone on this list to hop
on over & perform pre-release testing & yet you've not bothered to
install & do the same? Amazing.

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).

I don't fully understand, but perhaps this is a serious bug?

No. It's not a bug at all. It is a fact of testing. If you actually
actively did what you are flogging in this thread (pre-release testing)
you'd be well aware of the issues with installing test versions on
existing systems. To promote otherwise on *this* list is both
disingenuous and dangerous.

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.

That is valid and is of such high importance to be published on the
'qa' web page!

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".)

True, but surely users are sufficiently intelligent to understand not
to use alpha, beta, pre-release, release candidate, etc. on computers
containing important information such as a thesis???

You've already stated that you've not installed/tested/tried 3.5.x
yourself ("No, there are no new features of personal interest.") and are
unaware that the "RC" does not install as a "dev" version and installs
over the top of a pre-installed 3.5.0 "standard" version. So... are you
sufficiently intelligent enough to understand that your "advise" made no
mention of this?

Any competent tester should have a separate machine.

Right... Do you? I seriously doubt that.
"Any competent tester" would have tested on his/her own system *first*
(with at several OS's) before posting on this list.
Did you?

Note: If you (or anyone else) is still reading; I highly advocate
testing pre-release versions of LO and AOO whenever possible. However I
do not advocate posting "invites" on an LO (or AOO/OOo) user list
recommending that the "users" on the list jump on in and "test" an
alpha/beta/RC version of LO (or anything) without *first* advising the
users/testers of the issues (including data loss/profile loss etc) in
doing so blindly.

@e-letter: I'm not attempting to dissuade you (and others on this list)
from from promoting/asking others to assist in testing alpha/beta/RC
versions of LO. I *am* attempting to dissuade you from doing this
without first: 1) doing it yourself, 2) knowing & explaining the
benefits & hazards of doing the tests, 3) where & how to report what
you've done/tested.

I would add: 4) ensure that any particular "user" on this list be
prepared to *not* attempt to engage in any dev LO devs/lists regarding
issues they find with testing these "pre-release" versions, particularly
those that may involve developers as they will be greeted with both
animosity and insults in the process. You'll then be asked for a
software patch & solution to the problem that you've inocently brought
up on the dev list, and then be sent to dev-hell because: 1) you've
dared to bring up a user issue on the dev list, and 2) did not provide
the 'devs' with a software patch to fix *your* problem.

You'll find the same if you attempt to venture into the LO UI list
arena... See:
for nice examples. Seems it's OK to delete a basic LO Writer feature,
install a geewiz header/footer "feature" (that consantly polls for your
mouse input & thereby taking up unnecessary cpu in the process) and then
substitute the standard 'View|Text Boundaries' with either: 1) no
boundaries at all (in LO 3.5) or: 2) find that the LO "I've attempted
integrate a 'really slick' feature into LO 3.5 & f#uc you if you dare to
tell me that it's wrong. No problem - you can easily test yourself...
let me know if you can find the "test" version of LO 3.6.x. Not to
worry... just build it yourself from Master & Oh BTW, don't worry that
the changes aren't available in 3.5.x (where the bug was filed to begin
with), we'll take the Ubuntu linux approach and mark the bug as 'fixed'
because it will be available in some later version that we've neither
released for pre-release testing (that is/was the thing that you were
promoting... right?), nor released even in our development builds. But
not to worry... we've fixed this, you can't test it, but hey... here's a
png of my special build & test.

Do not mail to the list for:
    Reporting bugs, or feature requests unless - you are actively
soliciting feedback on how best to fix them yourself
        Reporting bugs is explained here:
        User questions and general feature discussions can be done on
the lists and
    This mailing list is particularly not a good place to report your
views on the general quality, completeness etc. of the software - unless
connected with actively working to improve the code.

If this 'user' list would like examples of the above I'll be happy to
post them.

Anyway, good luck with sucking in unsuspecting *users* on this list to
download (over 130MB of data) of some alpha/beta/RC bits, fire it up and
have it overwrite their existing LO/OOo (you do realise that the "RC"
will do this correct rather than install into a 'dev' opt & profile?)...
nah nevermind - you apparently didn't have the intelligence nor the test
machine to test before popping up with your 'advise'.

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.