Hi Sophie,
I agree with your point that the localization is important, while the function
and working process a tool is able to provide is also critical to meet our
goal, isn't it? :) Moztrap takes more advantage in the latter and it has an
activated development team. That's why I still believe
Hi,
looking at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Easy_Hacks I see no 'Confirm
a bug' EasyHack and I am not sure, if that was deliberate.
@Rainer: Could you please quickly add one, linking to the right docs about it?
Best,
Bjoern
___
List Name:
Bjoern Michaelsen schrieb:
Hi,
looking at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Easy_Hacks I see no 'Confirm
a bug' EasyHack
Hello Bjoern,
What are we talking about? I do not understand the question. Do you not
find a Bug HeasyHack: Please confirm a Bug or do you miss explications
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:10:34AM +0200, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
What are we talking about? I do not understand the question. Do you
not find a Bug HeasyHack: Please confirm a Bug
Exactly that. And since you know all the right links to it, could you please
set it up?
Best,
Bjoern
Hi,
If you see the automatic comment about that a fix was committed and you
are not longer able to reproduce the problem, I prefer to close it as
RESOLVED FIXED. In this case, it is clear that a developer committed
something for this particular bug. Someone fixed it by intention.
Otherwise, if
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:01:31PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
If you see the automatic comment about that a fix was committed and you
are not longer able to reproduce the problem, I prefer to close it as
RESOLVED FIXED. In this case, it is clear that a developer committed
something for
Hi Bjoern,
On 15/08/2012 13:00, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:44:07PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
2. translate the test case in wiki and give the link back to
Moztrap
I am afraid that it would be hard to maintain and too much clicking.
Maybe we could add a link
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:29:53PM +0200, Sophie Gautier wrote:
Imho, that won't work for two reasons:
- behavior is not the same in every language and testing may
differ/be adapted depending on the local
In that case it is even more important that the testcase describe _all_ the
information
Hi Bjoern,
15/08/2012 15:20, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 02:29:53PM +0200, Sophie Gautier wrote:
Imho, that won't work for two reasons:
- behavior is not the same in every language and testing may
differ/be adapted depending on the local
In that case it is even more
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:29:10PM +0200, Sophie Gautier wrote:
it's not necessary, the people from the team who reports a
misbehavior is aware of the difference between EN and his language.
This is one of the first thing you check when you are testing a
local environment, you've got it in
On 15/08/2012 17:31, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:29:10PM +0200, Sophie Gautier wrote:
it's not necessary, the people from the team who reports a
misbehavior is aware of the difference between EN and his language.
This is one of the first thing you check when you are
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 06:27:59PM +0200, Sophie Gautier wrote:
Beside the facts that we worked that way for years,
That does not mean we shouldnt improve on it.
if you don't trust the people managing the tests and the team,
Thats a strawman argument: I never said or implied that. I said
Sophie Gautier píše v St 15. 08. 2012 v 14:29 +0200:
Hi Bjoern,
On 15/08/2012 13:00, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
I fear manually translated testcases are doomed to fail as they will always
be
outdated/incomplete during the timeframe that matters. Using automatic
translation (and tweaking
13 matches
Mail list logo
