incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ariel Constenla-Haile <>
Subject Re: [RELEASE][3.4.1]: current status update
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:16:30 GMT
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:25:38AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:33:29PM +0200, J├╝rgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> I would like to propose now a new snapshot build based  revision
> >> 1371068 (tel:1371068).
> >
> > -1
> >
> > Didn't the last build show us that it is really a bad idea to propose
> > one build just because there is a fix for a release blocker? Browse the
> > archive looking for the rev. number to get a timeline idea:
> >
> > 1367440
> > 1367911
> > 1368799
> > 1368968
> > 1369110
> > 1369843
> >
> > A small resume: Rob's finding the missing update setting, Josef finding
> > two issues on Sunday, even before the RC was announced on Monday; a new
> > RC for those two fixes on Tuesday; now there is a fix, so yet another
> > RC... What if another release blockers are found tomorrow? Yet another
> > RC on Friday if the fix is available?
> >
> If the newly found bugs were caused by fixes to previous release
> blocker bugs, then that would be a big problem.  But is this the case
> here?  Recent bugs we've had are:
> -- password protection not working

this wasn't introduced by a bug in its previous RC, it could have been
detected in the nightly build from trunk, if the build boots were
actually working (that's not the case) and someone did QA on them (or
there where automated test performed on the build boot).

> -- update notifications not set

this comes from 3.4.0

> -- hang first time launching Impress due to threading issue with
> Presenter Console

this would have been detected in 3.4.0 if the extension wasn't broken,
but due to a bug it was installed but not working.

> I don't think any of these caused issues with printing.  Certainly the
> browser plugin dialog issue goes back to March, before AOO 3.4.0.

I could reproduce the printing bug with 3.4.0 r1327774 and the latest
dev. build, so the bug was there from Oracle's beta.

> So we're finding new bugs.  The frustrating thing is that we're not
> finding them sooner.  For example, at least two of the bugs (the
> missing update notification setting and the the browser plugin dialog
> issue) existing in 3.4.0.

also the "printing" crash (actually, it's not a printing crash: it
crashed even if you cancel the printing dialog).

> It is certainly possible that waiting another week will uncover more
> such bugs.  Waiting 2 weeks will find more.  Waiting 2 months even
> more.  But when do we know it is ready to ship?
> IMHO, there are two things we should be concerned with:
> 1) When a last minute fix is made, be sure that we're taking steps to
> reduce the risk of introducing new bugs.  The risk is high because the
> last minute fix is made after the main test pass has completed.  So
> you want to reduce the risk of new errors via code reviews, targeted
> testing, etc.
> 2) Ensuring that our main test pass for each release is able to
> complete before we vote on a release.  Our confidence in the quality
> of a release relies on our test coverage.
> 3) Reducing unnecessary churn on those who are building the binaries.

Building these releases is something automated, it is likely imposible
that the build breaks at any point. Even uploading the binaries is
automated (at least me, I track if the upload is working fine from my
cell phone via ssh).

IMO the issue here is that the way the releases are been proposed is not
fair with the people doing QA (at least not with those volunteering, not
being paid by IBM ).

> > In the meantime, I propose
> >
> >
> I don't see how that one is critical.  What is the user impact?  Is
> there data loss?  A crash?  Or is that dialog option just a no-op now?

the tab page in the Options dialog is offering a feature that has been
removed: there is no Mozilla plugin anymore. IMO it's like advertising
something to the user that she/he will never get.

Not a crash, but something not good.

> >


> But the existence or non-existence of a defect like this is
> independent of the pace of builds.   Frequent builds and frequent
> testing is a good thing, IMHO.  We just don't want that to translate
> into frequent voting ;-)

Please don't mix frequent building on regular basis with what has been
happening here the last weeks. There have been two, three, RC build
proposal in the same week. The most notorious is the build announced on
Monday and the re build on the next day. IMHO this is mainly not fair
for volunteers doing QA work. Of course, we have the former Symphony QA
team being payed to work on AOO QA, nevertheless it was Josef (AFAIK
he's not payed by IBM - correct6 me if I'm worng) who discovered the two
issues on Sunday, at this last issues were detected by users (or thanks
to user input, see
for the mozilla browser plugin).

Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

View raw message