[Libreoffice-qa] RC3 released as Final version???

[Petr Mladek]

Rimas Kudelis píše v St 15. 02. 2012 v 08:31 +0200:
> 2012.02.15 00:14, Pedro rašė:

>>> Maybe QA has a different meaning for me. But it really pisses me off
>>> the lack of concern about these details.

I wonder where this strong opinion comes from. How often do you check
about dialogs in other applications? I do it only and only when I report
bug and developers ask me to provide the build version.

Why normal people would want to look into this dialog and study it in
details? They know what they installed and what the application is for.
Aren't they?

I know that details are sometimes important but I am not convinced that
this problem is so serious. The application stability and usability is
more important for me than some crazy version in about dialog.


> > Olav Dahlum wrote
> >> This should be fixed ASAP from a marketing point of view. It's all about
> >> expectations, so renaming the tarball etc is just not good enough.
> >> Leif did also receive a similar complaint earlier, so this should be
> >> taken very seriously. This is not the first time I've addressed the
> >> dangers of such practices.

Where did you address this danger?


> One way to address this and still allow identifying which RC this is 
> easily would be to implement my suggestion from 
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42239. This way, the about 
> dialog in RC3 would look somewhat like this:
> 
> LibreOffice 3.5.0
> Build ID: libreoffice-3.5.0.3


It was YOU, QA guys, who complained about unclean versioning, see
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021742.html

You were confused by things like, 4f11d0a-adcf6d5-c4b29bd and you wanted
something human readable. I wonder if libreoffice-3.5.0.3 is clear
enough.

I see several possibilities here:


1. Do one more build once the last rc is approved.

   It will delay the release by few days (build time, smoketest, upload
   on mirrors). Note that we can't do incremental build easily because 
   it is dangerous and the build tree is not stored on the build hosts.


2. Do a crazy hack to show the version according to the installer name.

   It would be possible on Windows and MAC but pretty hard on Linux
   because we rename only the download tarball but not the RPMs.


3. Omit "rcx" in the last planed release candidate.

   The danger is that it might include blocker. We might need another
   rc and it will not be easy to distinguish them.


4. Always omit the human readable "rcX" and distinguish the builds
   another way, .e.g. by the tag number 3.x.y.z.

   Will this be enough for QA people?


5. Wait if real users complain.

   Olav says, that they already complain?


I prefer the 4th solution if the 5th one is not acceptable for you.


Best Regards,
Petr