[Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice releases (was: Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday)

[Pedro]

Hi Bjoern


Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
> Note however that regressions _are_ being watched at the ESC. And people
> are
> also watching who caused them (which is only possible when they are
> bibisected) and where -- at least I am doing this already for quite a
> while. Im
> not calling names in public though, as that would likely be very
> counterproductive. It would only be a last resort if things go really out
> of
> hands.

I'm glad to read this. Obviously the goal is not to point fingers (in fact
that would be a really bad move)


Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
> So QA can help here by really bibisecting bugs: Bibisected bugs tell
> developers
> where we cant be braver and we are going too fast and loose. Good data on
> bibisected regressions allows developer to handle things properly.

I'm well aware of that. However bibisecting is not a trivial task (in terms
of setting up a system and in terms of time). It would indeed be good to
have more people doing this but it is not so easy to recruit people when the
project's visibility is low. I'm on the QA mailing list for Apache
OpenOffice and some days (not every day, of course) there are 3 or 4 people
volunteering to join QA...


Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
> P.S.: If you want to raise visibility to regressions in a helpful way, I
> suggest you start with a _positive_ motivation for developers. E.g. QA
> giving
> out a badge each month for the three developers with (most simple
> approach):
> 
> - a/ the most commits
> - b/ without a regression known to be bibisected down to a commit of
> him/her
> 
> I assume something like that might create some good and _positive_
> motivation
> in the right direction ...

This is a positive suggestion.
Thank you! 

Best regards,
Pedro



--
View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Reminder-QA-Meeting-on-Wednesday-tp4167253p4167478.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.