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

Pedro pedlino at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 09:57:44 PST 2012

Hi Michael, all

Michael Meeks-2 wrote
> 	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 :-)

This is a Catch 22... If it is installed in parallel, then it can't be named
a Release Candidate because it doesn't behave like one :)

I agree totally on two releases for the real release code.

Michael Meeks-2 wrote
>> 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 ;-) 

Not really. It's just an argument that if releases are too close, developers
will only have time to fix blockers :)
So not so critical bugs tend to accumulate. This could mean that it will
loose quality as it goes along if it there are no major obstacles ;)

Michael Meeks-2 wrote
> 	It's not clear to me that releasing less frequently creates more
> resources for back-porting and reviewing patches.

See previous answer :)
It doesn't create more resources but it provides more time to clean up the
slate until the next batch of bugs is introduced :)

Michael Meeks-2 wrote
> 	Anyhow - thanks for the feedback & also for the great work on QA :-)

This is my way to say thanks and to give something back in return for the
program that was offered to me.
I wish more people would do the same... even if they can't code ;)

Best regards,

View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-3-5-0-QA-from-BHS-1-to-BHS-2-tp3643039p3648320.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list