Hi Rene,
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
2.2.1. Most of the time was internal discussions!
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.
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!
Thorsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
