Sophie Gautier wrote:
Would it makes sense to just open a bug for each feature
implemented, even little one :-), with a very minimal description?
QA people will take care of its state to save developer's time. Then
we can retrieve the list easily from BZ?
Hi Sophie,
yes, that'll work.
I think that if we have a place to centralize the results, run a
script that only show the fails/per platform/installations, that
will be easier to handle than to have to dig in the result files any
time. Its just text files after all.
Yes, provided the rate of random, false positives is low enough. In
the past, one couldn't compare result files from different platforms
(sometimes even installations), because of so many variation. I've
no strong opinion about the testtool, it has caught quite a few
bugs, but in my experience also causes a lot of manual
double-checking.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
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.