On 11/25/2015 02:40 AM, Pedro wrote: > > > > Now that Collabora has a paid version (by the UK government) which is a 3 > year LTS some of these bugs might start to be squashed and contributed back > to the Master branch... > > A sugestion: maybe have a branch dedicated to bug fixes every other year? > Example: let's say 5.1 is dedicated to fixes. Then a slight change of > schedule would postpone 5.2.0 to some months later so that most devs would > concentrate on 5.1 (of course new features would still be added to Master in > this period) instead of being split by two concurrent branches... This is literally impossible. We would have very talented developers saying no way - then what? We cannot dictate (we can suggest) what developers do. If we tell Developers "pause all your work and go back and do just regression fixing" they respond with "no" and then . . . the end.
This has been discussed on and off for years, it's a fine idea, impossible given our volunteer base and the way we respect that volunteers can't be told what to do. Again, if we go and bisect (fully bisect) each regression and add the developer who accidentally broke the feature I'm relatively sure we'd have good results. Then catching regressions before they happen is, as Sophi suggested, all about growing the community to do testing in Alpha. Best, Joel _______________________________________________ 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/
