Hi Rene,
I do not want to discuss CWSes here in detail?
On the way to OOo 2.3 we integrated more than 180 CWS in the last 3
months and at the end we will be near 400. Perhaps 10% of them do not
need mandatory automated tests for 4-8 hours. But in some cases the
developer and the QA persons do have different understandings if it
is needed or not. In this case it is so.
Thorsten
Rene Engelhard schrieb:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Thorsten Ziehm wrote:
Or imagine such a test run (failing or not) short before a release,
where you have a small CWS fixing a showstopper only. We don't really
want to have a mandatory 3 day delay in such situations, do we?
Best example currently: cws freetypettg. tiny *security* patch.
(As the freetype issue is public anyway I can say this here)
6 days from RfQA to QA approval (running tests?), now we are on the 8th
and miss the release date because rc3 will only be uploaded today/monday
(why do we need a rc3 anyway?) and keep our users one week more with open
security issues.
The test on this CWS ran only one night. The delay is because of a
weekend in between and some clarifications, if we need the fix for OOo
One night? That would have meant that (because the cws was RfQA on the
24th, they would have been finished on 25th). What is this weekend
argument then for?
What did you need to clarify? (see also below)
2.2.1. Most of the time was internal discussions!
Sure. We don't need a security fix for a library we ship in the tree in
the next release... Come on, what does that need for a discussion?
Please don't mix up the time how long a CWS is in state 'ready for QA'
and how long the tests run. Especially this is a good example for, do
not run the mandatory tests in QA, run the tests after finishing the CWS
by developer. Than the time in state 'ready for QA' will be reduced.
I don't have the infrastructure to do so. Not that I'd see the sense
in this specific case anywy.
I am one of the persons who will *NOT* run any things like this except
when they are done via normal build (which I mostly don't do either, at
least not for such cwses). Then again, I don't do real code cwses
affecting the offices functionality either normally...
I don't even know what tests you needed in this case anyway...
My main system isn't even a i386 fwiw.
Even the *current* procedures produce such useless delays, what if we
would have such mandatory things?
I do not think, that QA is useless time!
I don't either, but in this case it was.
The whole thing could have been done on the 24th, of, if you really think
the tests were needed (I don't), on the 25th.
Regards,
Rene
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGX/gb+FmQsCSK63MRAq70AJ0XBnvuDKgZO0hguHOZMmtSpiGo+ACeNPdQ
PV9MoY+WeD9qlQGktyB71NM=
=eU83
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
