incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:52:40 GMT
On 11/23/11 12:01 PM, eric b wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> Le 23 nov. 11 à 11:30, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
>>>
>>> The current step is :
>>>
>>> - IP clearance (not completed if I'm not wrong)
>>> - fix build issues and see what disasters caused the removing of
>>> important tools, like dmake and some other.
>>
>> yes and every helping hand is very much appreciated. I would really
>> like to see more people working on this
>>
>>>
>>> Next one will probably be :
>>>
>>> - consolidate the build (on every OS)
>> what do you mean here
>>
>
> Currently, code is removed, and every commit, we are not sure the build
> can finish. I'd consider this as undefined / chaotic state, that we need
> to consolidate.
>
>
>
>>> - optimize configure command line
>> again, can you explain what exactly do you mean
>
>
> The configure command line uses to differ from one OS to another. For a
> given OS, we need to define one "default" configure command line, saying
> how to build the Official Apache OpenOffice.org, and reproduce, as
> precisely as possible the same build (never possible, I know).
>
> This is the sense of "optimized" I have in mind.
>
>
>
>>> - optimize build dependencies for every OS
>>> - find and welcome newcomers, and builders on every OS
>> should be an ongoing effort
>>
>
>
> I think we have several volunteers around, indeed :-)
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> As volunteer, I remember I stopped to commit any cws and to contribute
>>> directly to OpenOffice.org, because of excessive, stupid and boring QA.
>> well that's your personal view
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>
>> that i can't share and that we hopefully will not follow here.
>>
>
> No problem.
>
> At the end of Oracle OpenOffice.org time, I remember 20% max of the my
> devel time was learn the bug or the feature, write code and commit it.
> And 80% of it was QA stuff,or whatever I didn't care, like click the
> right blocking checkbox / button on EIS, being blocked, or redo several
> times the same fail with bots, because the bot was broken, or being
> blocked by other OS, not concerned by the cws itself :-) , or something
> similar.
>
> I think we should trash that, but I can perfectly understand people
> disagree my point of view :-)

well i haven't had in mind what we had before. And i think you mix some 
things here. QA is indeed often more work than specifying and 
implementing a new feature. With QA i mean the development of tests (in 
case of unit tests) as well as the final execution of these test or even 
manual tests.

But we should combine these things with a broken or not optimal 
framework to track QA efforts or so. You talk mainly about your 
frustration with the provided tooling. I can share your view here but 
then we should start to make it better or different than in the past. 
It's up to us to define and build something new, that works better and 
is satisfying for all. Nobody needs frustration, we want to have fun ;-)

Juergen

>
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>


Mime
View raw message