[Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice QA call 2012-03-09 15:00 UTC

[Sophie Gautier]

Hi Bjoern, all,
On 07/03/2012 02:45, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to set up a LibreOffice QA call to streamline our QA efforts. I
> propose to make our first call on:
>
>   Friday, 2012-03-09 15:00 UTC
>
> I hope to repeat this call biweekly to discuss and coordinate ongoing QA
> issues, it would be great to have QA-contributors for the topics below able to
> join this call.
>
> prototype agenda for the first call:
> structured manual testing:
>   - oneshot populating Ubuntu checkbox for LibreOffice 3.5? (Nicholas Skaggs)
>   - syncing checkbox from litmus for LibreOffice 3.6 (Yifan Jiang)

For Checkbox we are waiting for an experienced/skilled QA member to 
write the tests, will we have this person for the call?
Concerning Litmus, not sure it's necessary to sync it finally because I 
don't see it's usage enhanced. It's not really adapted to our needs and 
we should first think at the people who will use it instead of losing 
time writing tests that nobody will run.
May be it would be interesting that our QA member working on Checkbox 
with Canonical work also on Case conductor to see how it feet our needs 
and/or how we can adapt it with the help of the language communities.
> upstream bugwrangling:
>   ->1000 NEEDINFO bugs, what can we do about it? (Rainer Bielefeld, Cor Nouws)
>   - general bug stats (Rainer Bielefeld)
>   - submarine bugs (aka important bugs that stay undiscovered too long) (Cor Nouws)
> distro bugwrangling:
>   - upstreaming criteria/customs
>     (Christopher M. Penalver, Petr Mladek, Caolan NcNamara, Rene Engelhard, Jan Holesovsky)
> community testing, communication:
>   - how do we recruit more QA-interested contributors? (Cor Nouws, Sophie Gaultier)
>   - can we have QA-related EasyHacks? Can we explicitly promote those? (all)
> regression testing/bibisect:
>   - how do we broaden the bibisect know-how (Korrawit Pruegsanusak, Bjoern Michaelsen)
>   - currently 27/27 bibisected bugs are older than the bibisect-range:
>     - do we maybe need a bibisect for 3.4?
>     - might indicate trouble during the bigmerge
>   - bibisect bugzilla etiquette
> unittests/automated testing: (Markus Mohrhard)
>   - overview of what we have
>   - can we get non-developers into this, is there a way for non-C++ coders to
>     get involved?
>
> Although I know not everyone proposed might be able to join the call, I would
> be happy if you try. If there are additional issues needing to be discussed,
> please reply to this mail with your addition. I will post the phone conference
> numbers later.

Cor will be available for the community things, so not sure I'll have to 
be there.

Kind regards
Sophie

-- 
Founding member of The Document Foundation