Hi all In order to test regressions it is useful to have several versions installed.
Since under Windows only one (stable) version can be installed as the working version, the alternatives are: a Portable version or a parallel installation. The main advantage of the Portable version is that it is self-contained, drive independent and anyone can install it. However not all versions are available because the guys at PortableApps abandon a branch as soon as there is a release from a newer branch (e.g. the final version in the 3.5 branch is 3.5.5 so 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 were ignored) This is not very good because ideally you would use the final version of each branch to quickly locate in which branch the regression occurred (and then check where it occurred within the branch) A parallel install can be made with ANY installer so all versions are available. However it requires more knowledge (even using Florian Reisinger's SI GUI it's not trivial) and the install size is huge (because all files are unpacked) My questions are: 1)If a bug occurs in a portable or parallel install can it be assumed to occur in a standard install or some bugs can be due to installation method (or inherent to the hacks needed to make the program parallel or portable)? 2) Which one is more realistic when comparing functionality? Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Portable-vs-Parallel-which-one-is-better-tp4056781.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
