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

Michael Meeks michael.meeks at suse.com
Tue Jan 10 09:17:53 PST 2012

On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 07:12 -0800, Pedro wrote:
> I know this wasn't addressed to me, but here are my thoughts...

	I always like to hear your thoughts :-)

> First of all RCs: RC releases replace the tester's stable release. I know it
> can't be otherwise.

	Ok - so this might be a good argument for keeping
parallel-installability until later, perhaps for RC1 itself ? I'd really
prefer to have two releases to test the real release code though :-)

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

	Fair comment; though it's perhaps better to call it an RC - since we
start beefing up our code review / checkin criteria then - which
(hopefully) helps make the final result more predictable.

> OTH more releases means more features but also more bugs. And because new
> bugs occur, old bugs are left behind.

	Oh ! so - this is an argument for doing a build every decade ;-) IMHO
the six monthly cadence seems to work reasonably well, and it fits the
Linux distributions too ...

> 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

	Sure - but given a choice between getting a fix for this in a stable
release next month - and getting a fix in another six months time (a
yearly release schedule) - which would you choose ? ;-)

	It's not clear to me that releasing less frequently creates more
resources for back-porting and reviewing patches.

	Anyhow - thanks for the feedback & also for the great work on QA :-)

	All the best,


michael.meeks at suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list