I apologize in advance if my note was note clear. I'm not at all interested in off-the-cuff opinions. We all have our opinions. But I'm only interested in fact-based analysis of the actual regressions reported in BZ. Specifically: what caused the actually defects that ended up in 4.0.0 and what could have been done to prevent it. General recommendations, like "more time", not backed by specific analysis, are not very useful. And remember, there will never be enough time to improve quality with a suboptimal process. The goal should be (IMHO) to improve the process, i.e., work smarter, not harder.
Regards, -Rob On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > We're working now on AOO 4.0.1, to fix defects in AOO 4.0.0. The fact > that we're doing this, and their are no arguments against it, shows > that we value quality. I'd like to take this a step further, and see > what we can learn from the defects in AOO 4.0.0 and what we can do > going forward to improve. > > Quality, in the end, is a process, not a state of grace. We improve > by working smarter, not working harder. The goal should be to learn > and improve, as individuals and as a community. > > Every regression that made it into 4.0.0 was added there by a > programmer. And the defect went undetected by testers. This is not > to blame. It just means that we're all human. We know that. We all > make mistakes. I make mistakes. A quality process is not about > becoming perfect, but about acknowledging that we make mistakes and > that certain formal and informal practices are needed to prevent and > detect these mistakes. > > But enough about generalities. I'm hoping you'll join with me in > examining the 32 confirmed 4.0.0 regression defects and answering a > few questions: > > 1) What caused the bug? What was the "root cause"? Note: > "programmer error" is not really a cause. We should ask what caused > the error. > > 2) What can we do to prevent bugs like this from being checked in? > > 3) Why wasn't the bug found during testing? Was it not covered by any > existing test case? Was a test case run but the defect was not > recognized? Was the defect introduced into the software after the > tests had already been executed? > > 4) What can we do to ensure that bugs like this are caught during testing? > > So 2 basic questions -- what went wrong and how can we prevent it in > the future, looked at from perspective of programmers and testers. If > we can keep these questions in mind, and try to answer them, we may be > able to find some patterns that can lead to some process changes for > AOO 4.1. > > You can find the 4.0.0 regressions in Bugzilla here: > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&remaction=run&namedcmd=400_regressions&sharer_id=248521&list_id=80834 > > > Regards, > > -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
