Hi Maho,
OK, I've filed 110113 for this purpose.
Best regards
Marcus
Maho NAKATA wrote:
I'd like to ask Marcus and Jean-Baptiste about filing issue about PPC Mac
3.2.0 release process. Something like following.
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=109277
it is not too late. better than nothing. I can do it but
it is not appropreate I'm just a build provider.
>
I belive recording is very important. I also add some comments
about your ML thread. It is very informative.
From: Marcus Lange <marcus.la...@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [qa-dev] Testing 3.2.0 en-US on MacOS X PPC
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:53:45 +0100
I see. Thanks, in any case I recommend filing issue. Otherwise
we cannot keep track what happens, even though it is *NOT* actually
trigger the real processes.
you are right. I promise to do it better next time. ;-(
I belive it is not too late...I'm not sure we will have a release version
for 3.2.1...We only have a record in this ML or my blog entry. It won't be
an official one.
So - Marcus, what is your opinion for approval issues? Is it relevant?
Is it redundant?
They are is still needed.
I see.
AFAIK the items in QATrack are used to keep an overview about the
current status of every listed build. But "approved" status does't
mean it will be published on mirrors (more or less)
automatically.
"automatically" is the key point. If we can automatically feed approval
into issue list or something like that, we can reduce some efforts.
Maybe the NL team would like to release all possible
builds at the same time due to a press announcement and therefore has
to wait until all are approved?
Yes - this is the case of JA team, too.
Furthermore, I cannot look every 5 min. into QATrack just to see that
a another build was approved that should now be released to the
mirrors. ;-)
I see.
Therefore a separate issue is still necessary to tell which builds
should now be really released to the mirrors.
Also, with a query in Issuezilla you can get an overview which builds
(or better languages) are really released.
cf. http://blog.livedoor.jp/maho_nakata/archives/51348609.html
In my opinion, keeping two identical info are problematic.
With the thoughts from above I don't see it as identical. At least for
me there is a clear difference.
ok, thanks
Best regards,
Nakata Maho
From: Marcus Lange <marcus.la...@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [qa-dev] Testing 3.2.0 en-US on MacOS X PPC
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:28:59 +0100
Hi Maho,
I wrote no specific issue for this. But the distribution is tracked in
QATrack.
Ciao
Marcus
Maho NAKATA wrote:
Hi Marcus, and Jean-Baptiste
thank you very much, I'm very appreciated!
Anyway which issue is related to this release process?
Thanks again!
From: Marcus Lange <marcus.la...@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [qa-dev] Testing 3.2.0 en-US on MacOS X PPC
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:00:18 +0100
Hi Maho,
yes, in my previous post of course I mean "now available". ;-)
Best regards
Marcus
Maho NAKATA wrote:
Hi
I guess you mean
http://ooopackages.good-day.net/pub/OpenOffice.org/MacOSX/3.2.0rc5_20100202/OOo_3.2.0rc5_20100202_MacOSXPowerPC_install.dmg
?
From: Marcus Lange <marcus.la...@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [qa-dev] Testing 3.2.0 en-US on MacOS X PPC
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:42:37 +0100
Hi,
the build is no available for download on the websites.
Best regards
Marcus
Maho NAKATA wrote:
Hello Jean-Baptiste
many thanks as PowerPC package provider. how you will have
done should be formalized so that others can take over.
thanks
From: Jean-Baptiste Faure <jbf.fa...@laposte.net>
Subject: Re: [qa-dev] Testing 3.2.0 en-US on MacOS X PPC
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:37:05 +0100
Le 10.03.2010 09:43, Marcus Lange a écrit :
Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote:
Le 09.03.2010 23:07, Marcus Lange a écrit :
Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote:
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
Ok, I have added a second tests scenario for MacOS PPC to
papayes
in FR
category. He will read test description in French and do the
tests
on
en_US version.
Tests (Release Sanity scenario) done (assignment ID : 8385). One
Fail
found as in FR version, on test 109172.
so, in other words the test was successful and the build is
approved?
If it was FR build I would want a second test to confirm. But if
you
do
not have a second tester I think you can consider that other
approved
PPC builds help to approve this one.
then I think a single test must be enough.
So, thanks a lot for your help and of course to the tester. :-)
Best regards
Marcus
You're welcome :-)
JBF
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qa.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qa.openoffice.org
