incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrea Pescetti <>
Subject [RELEASE] Planning QA activities (was: Dictionary extensions)
Date Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:22:30 GMT
On 15/04/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Historically, produced a numbered Release Candidate
>> ( 3.3 had ten, RC1 to RC10) that was made available to the
>> community exactly for the purpose of looking for unknown bugs. QA activities
>> were planned for the RC phase and, after a few days of availability, a RC
>> was approved as final or rejected (and the Release Manager could, and at
>> times did, include fixes for previously known bugs that had been
>> accumulating and that were significant; none of them was a blocker in
>> itself, but each of them would have caused problems to users, so their
>> combined effect was blocking the release).
> That is what we've been doing with the dev snapsots builds.  Surely
> you've seen the QA work Lily has done with testing them?

Sure, and it was great work. But those tests were run on versions that 
are now quite outdated. Example: the spell check test asks you to verify 
that no spell check is available and that dictionaries have been removed 
accurately, while we all know that things are quite different in current 

The traditional Quality Assurance process had two 
features that I'd like to keep:

1) Full QA is run on what we release. We need to ensure that OpenOffice 
works now, not that previous builds worked.

2) The community at large is involved in testing, in a specific short 
period just before the release. If "Release Candidate" has a different 
meaning now, call it the "Pre-Release Phase", that will end with a 
"Release Candidate" we can vote on rather confidently. We can't rely on 
volunteers doing QA on a regular basis, but we can very easily find 
volunteers willing to stress-test a "nearly final" version in a well 
defined timeframe (1-2 weeks).

I would keep this as a basis for discussing how to structure QA 
activities in future (after 3.4), if others agree.


View raw message