Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany, 19-03-2007 05:16:
Hi Andre,
James Mckenzie schrieb:
Finished Base tests. Issue 49204 is still with us?
Of course it is. And a good example why it is hard to encourage people
to do more than one TCM test-run. We do always the same tests - and find
the same errors again and again.
<ironic>
Maybe we should implemen templates in TCM? "Click here to set known
issues as failed".
</ironic>
Hmm. Didn't even know this issue comes from TCM. Anyway.
Please look at issues targeted "2.x", with owner "oj" or "fs", and
you'll see that the Base team has a lot of other things to do, before
fixing a "P4 OOoLater" task.
As much as I understand that it's frustrating to report/QA bugs which
don't get attention for years, that's, as said in another thread here, a
matter of resources and priorities.
+1
And, in the hope this doesn't sound too harsh: I would not be willing to
spend any (non-negligible) amount of time into an issue just to satisfy
TCM (or any other QA process, for that matter). That is, if the bug does
have a very limited impact only *in real life* (as indicated by the
priority), then I'd consider it a waste of precious resources to fix it
before the more important issues.
An issue priority is not raised due it's relationship with TCM.
So a visible way of showing if it's broken and you should skip looks
like the better option.
I know that in testtool, as well as in the automated UNO API test
scripts, there are mechanisms to log such "this is a known bug with
number #i12345#" events, and to *not* count them as test error. I'd say
TCM needs something similar - simply because QA resources are equally
precious, and should not be wasted, too.
I remember I forgot to ask something on the last meeting...
what's the "OpenSource TCM" status?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
