2011/12/19, Andor E <[email protected]>: > Hi, > as promised, I have asked for permission to release our test cases > under a CC license. The idea was received very well and I got the > official permission. Really good news! Thanks for your sharing!
I will have a look at the test database next to > find out, which formats I can use to release the test cases. > I will make an announcement, when I have a release ready. > Any input from your side? If possible, XML formart is prefered. > Greetings > > Andor Ertsey > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Andor E <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'll ask tomorrow at our regular meeting with the project lead. >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:41 AM, xia zhao <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 2011/12/8, Andor E <[email protected]>: >>>> Hi, >>>> I almost missed your mail. When I got no response to my offer, I >>>> thought there was no interest. >>> >>> Sorry, I was catched by some urgent things those days after I post the >>> AOO 3.4 test plan topic to community and missed your mail.. >>> >>>> Our testers use TestLink (http://www.teamst.org/), so the test cases >>>> currently live inside that. From the manual it seems, that one can >>>> only export to XML. Which format would you prefer? >>> XML format sounds fine for me. >>> >>>> Other than that, I still need to ask for permission to share the test >>>> cases. It would help, if I could demonstrate serious interest by the >>>> community to put the tests to good use. >>> Yes, now we have had several QA vulunteers have strong passion to >>> contribute their effort to AOO 3.4 and further AOO testing. One big >>> challenge for us is the most test assets, especially manual test >>> cases, are not migrated from old OO site to Apache OO site. This will >>> bring high risk to regression testing and to the AOO quality >>> assurance. Thanks advance if your team can share it. >>> >>>> >>>> Greetings >>>> >>>> Andor Ertsey >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:54 AM, xia zhao <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Andor, >>>>> >>>>> It will be much appreciated if you can share it with free license. And >>>>> we >>>>> can see if some volunters can contribute to the translation. >>>>> >>>>> Hope your response. Thanks. >>>>> 2011/11/24 Andor E <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> for our project we have a sizeable amount of manual test cases for >>>>>> OpenOffice.org (created by professional test engineers). These are >>>>>> used for internal and user tests before a release. If there's a >>>>>> serious interest in it, I might be able to arrange a release of these >>>>>> test cases under a free license (creative commons?). They are written >>>>>> in German, though, and would need to be translated first. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greetings >>>>>> >>>>>> Andor Ertsey >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <[email protected]> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>>>> >> I think it's time for use to discuss and detail AOO 3.4 test plan >>>>>> >> now. >>>>>> >> Basically at current time I suggest: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi Lily, Thanks for the proposal. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For this to work we need: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 1) Test cases that are clear and easy to understand >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2) Test cases that can be run without requiring a lot of >>>>>> > preparation >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 3) Test cases that can be run without dedicating much time. How can >>>>>> > someone help who has only 1 hour to contribute? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 4) Test cases that can be run without learning a lot of other tools >>>>>> > or >>>>>> processes >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build >>>>>> >> Verification Testing(BVT in short). >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Is the the same as a "smoke test"? >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 3. Focus on test infrastructure set up. Start from case >>>>>> >> management >>>>>> tool. >>>>>> >> For 3.4, place the test cases on wiki and volunteer can do >>>>>> >> general >>>>>> testing >>>>>> >> against. If volunteer couldn't write cases, may give the test >>>>>> >> scope >>>>>> >> he >>>>>> >> would do. For example, which component etc. And then report >>>>>> >> defects >>>>>> >> in >>>>>> >> Apache Bugzilla. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Maybe we also need a "guide to writing test cases"? Or point to >>>>>> > something that already exists for the project. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short) >>>>>> >> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > OK. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > OK. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 6. Build private build before official build is ready >>>>>> > >>>>>> > OK. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 7. Platform will be covered >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> - Windows XP >>>>>> >> - Win7 32bit/64bit >>>>>> >> - Where we only have a 32bit windows version, it should run >>>>>> >> against >>>>>> >> 62bit windows version. >>>>>> >> - Redhat 6 32 bit/64 bit >>>>>> >> - Ubuntu 10.04 32 bit/64 bit >>>>>> >> - Mac 10.7 >>>>>> >> - Mac 10.6.x >>>>>> >> - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?) >>>>>> >> - OS2 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For platforms, maybe we think about them like this: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 1) In order to preserve the value of the OpenOffice brand among >>>>>> > users >>>>>> > and our reputation for high quality, we will have an official Apache >>>>>> > binary release only on platforms that have successfully completed >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > QA plan that we all agree on. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2) Volunteers, based on their interests, will determine which >>>>>> > platforms are officially supported in releases. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 3) Platforms that do not have enough volunteers to complete the test >>>>>> > plan would not have official Apache releases. Or if we had >>>>>> > releases, >>>>>> > they would be called "experimental" or some other name to indicate >>>>>> > that they were not fully tested. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 4) Of course, anyone is welcome to take our official source releases >>>>>> > and make a build on another platform and distribute it. But these >>>>>> > would not be official Apache releases. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -Rob >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Welcome your comments. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>> >
