[Libreoffice-qa] 3.5.0 QA ... from BHS 1 to BHS 2

[Pedro]

Hi Michael


Michael Meeks-2 wrote
> 
> 	So - I'd love to understand this desire for less frequent releases
> better :-) After all, we have tinderboxes churning out at least daily
> releases (in theory), perhaps several a day if we are lucky.
> 
> 	What is the concern about having new RC's ? is it that you think
> developers will not care about and/or test any bugs that appear in
> something one release-candidate old ? [ that seems unlikely if it is a
> serious bug ], or ? ...
> 

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but here are my thoughts...

First of all RCs: RC releases replace the tester's stable release. I know it
can't be otherwise. But if the tester actually uses the stable version for
productivity he certainly doesn't want it to be replaced. It is excellent
that people are willing to contribute by reporting bugs but it is not
reasonable to expect that in order to do so they must sacrifice the
stability of their work tools.

Second disadvantage of RCs: You can't compare the RC with the stable release
because it overwrites it. You can do a parallel run, but it is not exactly
the same. 

So my opinion is that there should be more Betas than RCs even if the total
testing period is the same.

OTH more releases means more features but also more bugs. And because new
bugs occur, old bugs are left behind.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about (and the reason why I insisted
on giving more weight to 3.4.5 than to 3.5.0...)
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Blood-pressure-chart-doesn-t-work-tt3646489.html#a3647580

To be honest I'm puzzled that a program which reportedly is used by 25
*million* people worldwide has half a dozen people in QA... I guess this
shows a lot about human nature :(

--
Pedro

--
View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-3-5-0-QA-from-BHS-1-to-BHS-2-tp3643039p3647878.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.