openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yuzhen Fan <fanyuz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE]: Release Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 (RC3)
Date Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:22:13 GMT
Considering that:
1. The first two defects[1] are regressions introduced in AOO 4.0 and not
AOO 4.0.1 release blockers
2. The installation defect[1] on Redhat6.4 64bit has workaround

I agree to release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.

[1]
Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx file
in AOO
Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4 64bit

Regards,
Yu Zhen


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Shenfeng Liu <liushenf@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2013/9/26 Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> > <orwittmann@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > resending as my "reply to list" goes only to qa@o.a.o
> > >
> > >
> > > On 25.09.2013 12:17, Yuzhen Fan wrote:
> > >>
> > >> -1:
> > >>
> > >> I vote -1 for RC3 because of these 3 issues, the first two are
> function
> > >> regressions from 3.4.1 and 4.0.0, the last one is for bad user
> > experience
> > >> on Redhat 64bit installation.
> > >>
> > >> Bug 123345 - [Regression]Docx embedded table display incorrectly
> > >> Bug 123346 - [Regression]the bullet display incorrectly when open docx
> > >> file
> > >> in AOO
> > >> Bug 123348 - Cannot integrate AOO 4.0.0 in desktop menu in Redhat6.4
> > 64bit
> > >>
> > >
> > > I can confirm that 123345 and 123346 are regressions which had been
> > > introduced in AOO 4.0.0
> > >
> >
> > So these are not new defects in 4.0.1?
> >
>
> I confirmed that the 2 defects are also in 4.0. Then I agree that they are
> not 4.0.1 ship blocker.
>
> - Shenfeng (Simon)
>
>
> >
> > > On the one hand I agree that regressions introduced in the latest
> release
> > > should be fixed in the next release.
> > > On the other hand we are already quite far in our planned AOO 4.0.1
> > release
> > > schedule and AOO401rc3 contains a lot of important bug fixes and
> > > improvements regarding our supported languages. Thus, I strongly vote
> for
> > > releasing AOO401rc3 as AOO 4.0.1 under these circumstances.
> > > From my point of view 123345 and 123346 should be release blocker for
> our
> > > next release.
> > >
> >
> > It is important that we understand the different role of a minor x.y.1
> > release.
> >
> > When we have a major release, like 4.0.0, we're making tons of code
> > changes, adding new features, and potentially (and very likely
> > actually) introducing many regressions.   So the QA effort for a major
> > release has many aims:
> >
> > -- test new features
> > -- verify new fixes
> > -- identify the regressions introduced in the code
> >
> > We can never test 100% of a product.  Maybe computer-based proofs of
> > correctness have been done in some chip designs, but generally
> > complete coverage is never possible.  So we focus on the most-commonly
> > used features of the product, across a large matrix of platforms and
> > applications.
> >
> > The goal, if you think about it is:  to increase the confidence that
> > we are *not* releasing a product that has a bug in it that will make
> > it unusable for our users.
> >
> > We can never guarantee this.  We can only increase our confidence in
> > this.  At whatever finite point we stop our testing it is always
> > possible that the next test would have found a killer defect.   So the
> > challenge in designing a test plan is to identify what tests can be
> > performed in a reasonable finite test pass (or passes) that will
> > reduce the chances of a killer defect still being in the code.  I
> > think Yuzhen did a great job at designing the test plans for the
> > releases.
> >
> > The quality approach in a minor maintenance release like 4.0.1 is
> > different.  We don't make tons of code changes.  In fact we are very
> > restrictive.  We only fixed showstopper bugs that were proposed on the
> > mailing list, discussed and approved by the Release Manager.  The goal
> > is have no new regressions introduced.  The goal is to fix targeted
> > bugs, and get those fixes out to users quickly.  If we didn't think
> > that speed of release was an important thing here then we would all be
> > working on 4.1.0, not 4.0.1.  So the fact that we are working on 4.0.1
> > at all shows that there is some urgency to get bug fixes released.
> >
> > In any case, if new bugs are found in 4.0.1 testing, I don't think it
> > matters whether they were found in RC1, RC2, RC3, during the vote or
> > the day after the vote.  It doesn't matter who discovered the bug or
> > when they discovered it.  The question is:  How severe is the defect?
> > Is it a showstopper?  Is it something we hold back 4.0.1 for?  Or
> > something less severe that we put in 4.1.0?
> >
> >
> > > Regarding issue 123348:
> > > As far as I know this issue is not new and already known. I think a
> > > workaround exist. Thus, for me this is not a release blocker.
> > >
> > > Yu Zhen, do you think you can change your mind regarding your vote?
> > >
> >
> > I don't think we should ask anyone to change their votes.  A release
> > is approved by majority vote.  It does not need to be unanimous.  We
> > should not be afraid to have a dissenting vote.  But I do hope we can
> > develop a shared view of the true value of QA and its role in the
> > project.  It is not just the defects found and reported.  The true
> > value is that the tests were completed and that *nothing worse than
> > these three bugs was found*.  That is the information we needed to
> > know.  That is what gives us increased confidence that 4.0.1 is ready
> > to release.   It also helps ensure that 4.1.0 (or even 4.0.2, if
> > needed) will be even better.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards, Oliver.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Yu Zhen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Duerr <hdu@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> this is a call for vote on releasing the RC3 release candidate as
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1. This will be an important update release
> for
> > >>>> Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to fix some serious regressions and to
> introduce
> > >>>> some new languages (Basque, Khmer, Lithuaian, Polish, Serbian
> > Cyrillic,
> > >>>> Swedish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Chinese Traditional). It is a
> further
> > >>>> key milestone to continue the success of OpenOffice.
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The RC is based on the release branch AOO401, revision 1524958!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1.
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>      [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
> > >>>>      [ ]  0 Don't care
> > >>>>      [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 : release AOO401rc3 (a.k.a. r1524958) as Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1
> > >>>
> > >>> Herbert
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
> > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message