Re: [Libreoffice-qa] moztrap documentation feedback

[Thomas Hackert]

Good morning Petr, *,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 07:41:59PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> first, it is great that you working on the test cases.

:)

> Thomas Hackert píše v Út 26. 03. 2013 v 19:00 +0100:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:01:21PM +0800, Yifan Jiang wrote:
> > > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Test_Case
> > > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Test_Cases_Organization
> > 
> > Oh boy ... I cannot escape the feeling, that I will spend most of the
> > Easter days reading documentation and the like instead of translating
> > test cases ... :(
> 
> This sounds scary. When you have this fresh in mind, are you able to
> give any feedback about the Moztrap documentation, please?

I think, you misunderstood me: I was not scared about its content, but
the amount of links Yifan offered to me ... ;)

> + Are there any really useful parts?
> + Are there any really useless parts?

Somehow ... Yes :) But I was missing a more extended explanation for
translators ... :( Such things like ...

1. I have found in most test cases the beginning "In German", but when I
looked at the inactive Base test cases (why are they inactive, btw.?), I
found a different structure with a "[de]" in front of the segment. Is
this a relic from the OOo-TCM? And would it not be better to use this
structure? And I seem to remember (from the ToDo list, I think ... ;) )
that an import of old test cases is planned. What is the status here?
Are translations of them are imported as well?

2. How do I get my translated test cases in a test run? A short test
during my translation shows me, that they were not in there ... :( Or
does someone have to prove them first and then they get active?

... And maybe some more, which I forgot ... ;)

> I wonder if we could somehow change the structure to make the start
> easier. I would be great to split the really necessary steps and other
> details that could be read later. :-)

Yes please :)
Have a nice day
Thomas.

-- 
A place for everything and everything in its place.
-- Isabella Mary Beeton, "The Book of Household Management"
[Quoted in "VMS Internals and Data Structures", V4.4, when
 referring to memory management system services.]
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice help update?

[mariosv]

Hi Kieran,

On Monday, 8 April 2013, Kieran Peckett wrote:
| The guides do get updated - the 4.0 guides are being written now and the
getting started ones are already done. 
| http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/documentation/


thanks for you attention, I know it and I indeed appreciate the great job in
the documentation. I have no doubts in giving the references to the
documentation.

But my question is not about it. The F1 key is the key, and the help it is
not there about new enhancements.
In my understanding the inner help is the primary help.

I can understand update the help is not easy, but at least, then, we need a
way for the people find right there the links to documentation, I think the
quicker and easy can be an entry link in the help menu or links in the
help?.

Regards.
Miguel Ángel.






--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-help-update-tp4048388p4048685.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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Moztrap] Can someone explain test case #122 to me?

[mariosv]

Hi Petr,

thanks for your observation about change all in one step.

The use of numbers #n instead of the columns letters was my election.

On the other hand my little help on the CF, a while after this first step
was not welcome by developer, so better I stay off the issue.

Regards.

Miguel Ángel.



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Moztrap-Can-someone-explain-test-case-122-to-me-tp4048378p4048683.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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice help update?

[Kieran Peckett]

The guides do get updated - the 4.0 guides are being written now and the
getting started ones are already done.
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/documentation/

On Sunday, 7 April 2013, mariosv wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> sometimes, trying to help other users, I like to give them the reference
> where to find in the help about what are they looking for, etc.?. And
> always
> I can, I recommended to have a quick read of the help to know what is
> there,
> specially with new user.
>
> But with more enhancements introduced, I begun to find that this is no
> possible, because the help is not updated.
>
> Why is I have done an analysis about what enhancements, detailed in 4.0 New
> Features page
> (https://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-0-new-features-and-fixes), have
> been
> updated in the help. And unfortunately, the results are what I was afraid.
> 
> The analysis is tabulate in the joined spreadsheet.
> 
> href="QA_Analysis_New_4-0_Features_in_LibreOffice_Help.ods">QA_Analysis_New_4-0_Features_in_LibreOffice_Help.ods
> IMVHO, the enhancements, should not be in final release without the help
> properly updated.
> Because if the help is not the reference, where is the reference?.
> How can no one to know what is there?.
> Is it right? we all trying to know how the new announced enhancements
> works.
> How can we know when there is a bug or is the expected result?
> How can we do an QA test without know in detail the enhancement?.
> Why not mandatory to introduce the enhancements, update the help?
> So again IMVHO what is not in help is like it does not exist in program.
>
> I think I have read time ago in the net, about how difficult is maintain
> the
> help system. But if this is not done then I think we are going to nowhere.
>
> I hope some progress can be done here.
>
> Regards.
> Miguel Ángel.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-help-update-tp4048388.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/
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] How to change QA processes: was: What should we do with bugs filed against Extensions/Templates?

[Robinson Tryon]

(Petr touched on some similar points; I haven't had a chance to finish
my reply until today :-)

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Rainer Bielefeld
 wrote:
>
> Quality Assurance has to do something with quality, and we have to observe
> and grant the quality of your own work. And here I have serious concerns.
>
> Let's take "Bug 63210 - EDITING: Superscript Defaults incorrect". Joel,
> please excuse me for taking that example, it was the first but I saw this
> morning in my "New bug reports" folder, and it's a typical one for
> observations I see with rising number in the last months. The goal seems to
> be to get the reports out of the QA process as quick as possible (because we
> have so many untouched reports), but I do not like that way, that only
> increases the amount of unfixed confirmed bugs.

I think that QA is best served by striking a balance between accuracy
and speed. We must seek to produce high-quality output, but if we fall
further and further behind each week, then we'll never catch up,
right?

> If we cans save 5 developer
> minutes at each bugs with careful research, that's a potential of 55 hours
> for the 679 bugs what changed to NEW in March 2013. That's 1 work of week
> for a busy developer!

Recruiting more people into the QA process can give us more man-hours
for triage, fdo cleanup, and everything else. Especially with complete
newbies, I agree that a certain amount of preparation and training for
our team members can pay off by reducing the amount of time developers
need to spend getting up to speed or tracking down each bug.

But that isn't to say that we should agonize over each tiny detail of
the bug report. I suggest that we try to cultivate a better
back-and-forth collaboration with developers, so that a dev can either
take a bug report and run with it, or can toss it back to QA and ask
for more info, better repro steps, more test documents, bibisection,
or whatever else would help them to use their time more efficiently.

> It has status NEW, what means "ready for bugfixing",
>  item
> 1, but I believe it's not:
>
> a) We have a report without info concerning Version and OS, and a
> confirmation for 1 Linux distribution. So current knowledge (for the moment)
> seems to indicate a LINUX problem? Should the report leave QA process
> ("NEW") without having this corrected or at least mentioned? Well, I confirm
> that for WIN, and so finally the found OS selection is correct, but without
> reasoning that's simply wrong. Reporter should be asked for related info.

Based on my experience with the Ask site, it can sometimes be tough to
ask the Reporter for additional information and get a useful answer
(or any answer at all). Being able to reproduce a bug on more than one
platform is nice, but if we don't have a very large QA team right now,
and if some people don't have multiple OSes on which to test bugs, I
can imagine that narrowing-down the affected Platforms might be
something we consider lower priority than just getting a first-round
confirmation on our outstanding set of UNCONFIRMED bugs.

Proposal: Is it possible for us to do some of the additional triage
work in subsequent "passes" over the bugs? What I mean is, if we work
quickly to triage and repro a bunch of unconfirmed bugs, is there a
good way that we can later query for bugs that, say, need to be tested
on Windows to determine if they're platform-specific or
cross-platform?

Such a system might help us to keep up with the rapid onslaught of new
bugs while giving us the opportunity to go back and improve older bug
reports as time allows...

>
> b) In between we have 3.6.6.2, what might be the next release. Shouldn't be
> checked whether the problem has been solved in between?
>
> c) This problem is text language related (of course), in German text
> language this auto correct does not exist. That might lead to the roots of
> the problem, I would have liked to find out where that problem started.
>
> d) It should be stated that the problem is limited to  after the
> date, works fine if you simply type a space or even after  or
> .
>
> e) Not only Writer is affected, same in Calc with  and Draw
> (and so probably Impress), might also appear in Base.
>
> f) The summary line still has that meaningless "incorrect". After QA it
> should be "AUTOCORRECT: Superscript of English ordinal number suffixes
> continued behind 'Enter' directly after suffix". Or similar!

Maybe this:

AUTOCORRECT [EN]: Superscript started in ordinal number suffixes
continues to next line

But perhaps even that summary is too technical. Consider the fact that
the bugtracker serves many purposes, one of which is making it easy
for users, triagers, and developers to manage a large set of
outstanding bugs. A large proportion of the people working on these
bugs may not know the difference between 'ordinal' and 'cardinal'
numbers.

Which brings up a good question: Do we expect users to de-d

[Libreoffice-qa] moztrap documentation fedback was: Re: about moztrap attachment missing :(

[Petr Mladek]

Hi Thomas,

first, it is great that you working on the test cases.

Thomas Hackert píše v Út 26. 03. 2013 v 19:00 +0100:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:01:21PM +0800, Yifan Jiang wrote:
> > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Test_Case
> > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Test_Cases_Organization
> 
> Oh boy ... I cannot escape the feeling, that I will spend most of the
> Easter days reading documentation and the like instead of translating
> test cases ... :(

This sounds scary. When you have this fresh in mind, are you able to
give any feedback about the Moztrap documentation, please?

+ Are there any really useful parts?
+ Are there any really useless parts?

I wonder if we could somehow change the structure to make the start
easier. I would be great to split the really necessary steps and other
details that could be read later. :-)


Best Regards,
Petr

___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Moztrap] Can someone explain test case #122 to me?

[Thomas Hackert]

Good morning Miguel, *,
mariosv  miguelangel.mobi> writes:
> Hi Thomas, I did the test,

thank you very much :)

> and certain that the bad English is mine.

No problem :)

> Basically changing the values:
> - in column #6 must change the background color in column #4 from green to
> blank.

O.K: That is the same result as I reported ... ;)

> - in column #10 must change the background color in column #13 from salmon
> to green.
> - in column #15 must change the background color in column #13 from salmon
> to blank.

Ah, O.K. Now I understand the instruction. When I follow your steps, it
works for me as well ... ;)

> Seems to work fine, except a crash the first time doing the test.

During my tests, LO did not crash, so I cannot confirm your observation ... ;)

> Win7x64Ult, Version 4.0.2.2 (Build ID:
> 4c82dcdd6efcd48b1d8bba66bfe1989deee49c3)

Thanks for your answer and have a nice day
Thomas.



___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Moztrap] Can someone explain test case #122 to me?

[Thomas Hackert]

Hello Yifan, *,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 11:42:46AM +0800, Yifan Jiang wrote:
> The translation style looks beautiful, it is fancy to see how the
> progress is being made :) Thanks a lot for your effort!

you are welcome :) And thanks for your work in Moztrap :)

> For the conditional formatting case particularly, let's take a look at
> left hand side of the sheet (ONE condition by cell).

Now I know ... ;) But as I tried to translate it, I was a bit confused,
what should change there ... :( I thought, all changes should happen at
once ... ;) Thanks to Miguel’s explanation, I got the idea, what should
happen there ... ;)

> The idea is cells background color in Column H is conditionally
> formatted, according to numeric comparison between cells in Column F
> and J in the same row. Meanwhile the numeric comparison is defined by
> Column I.

O.K.

> For example, for a random row 11, the test case indicates background
> color of the cell H11 should be green when F11 (value 2) < J11 (
> adjustable value 3). Otherwise when F11 (value 2) >= J11 (adjustable
> value 0), the background color of H11 should be none.

O.K.

> Actually all steps are following the ideas above, we simply do similar
> kind of check for each rows in both left-hand side area (left to
> column N) and right-hand side area (right to column O).

O.K.

> However the test case was described in a generic way to save the
> wording length. May be this brings some confusing?

Maybe ... ;)

> In addition, I tested the case myself with a master build and did not
> find problems:
> 
> Version 4.1.0.0.alpha0+ (Build ID: 
> 0552b4334c2fb6b130ec05934b952b60418aadc)

Alas there is no master build for my system (Debian Testing AMD64) since
December, if I see this right
(http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/master/Linux-x86_64_11-Release-Configuration/)
... :(

> Hope these information helps better understanding :)

For sure :)
Have a nice evening
Thomas.


-- 
Sometimes a man who deserves to be looked down upon because he is a
fool is despised only because he is a lawyer.
-- Montesquieu
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] How to change QA processes: was: What should we do with bugs filed against Extensions/Templates?

[Petr Mladek]

Rainer Bielefeld píše v Ne 07. 04. 2013 v 10:22 +0200:
> Petr Mladek schrieb:
> 
> > Ah, this sounds pretty bossy.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> yes, may be. My tone reflects my exception. I see too much unqualified 
> discussion. Before thinking about changes everybody should have have 
> understood the current system, why it is how it is?

Of course, the new people does not have such a big experience like you
but I would not say that they are unqualified. They have good points and
interesting ideas. In each case, they need to get the experience some
way and creativity is always valuable.

>  But I am such kind of Swiss wrist watch maker.

And I really appreciate your work.

> Quality Assurance has to do something with quality, and we have to 
> observe and grant the quality of your own work. And here I have serious 
> concerns.
> 
> Let's take "Bug 63210 - EDITING: Superscript Defaults incorrect". Joel, 
> please excuse me for taking that example, it was the first but I saw 
> this morning in my "New bug reports" folder, and it's a typical one for 
> observations I see with rising number in the last months. The goal seems 
> to be to get the reports out of the QA process as quick as possible 
> (because we have so many untouched reports), but I do not like that way, 
> that only increases the amount of unfixed confirmed bugs. If we cans 
> save 5 developer minutes at each bugs with careful research, that's a 
> potential of 55 hours for the 679 bugs what changed to NEW in March 
> 2013. That's 1 work of week for a busy developer!

I see the point but there are other points. Important part of the bug
triage is prioritization. We would be in troubles if half of new bugs is
perfectly triagged and ready for fixing but the rest is not touched at
all. It would mean that some important regressions might get unnoticed
for a long time.

I think that Joel tries to optimize the work. He tries to deal with new
bugs with the given resources. I think that it is very reasonable as
well. I am pretty sure that he will do more investigation if we get more
hands on it. Anyway, developers could always put the bug back in
NEEDINFO if there is not enough information.

I think that it is great to have so many productive people around. We
all could teach from each other.

For example, I am surprised how many details Rainer found about the bug.
It would be great to share more details about the setup that probably
allows to test many versions in parallel.


Best Regards,
Petr

___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Lifecycle of builds?

[Pedro]

Hi Robinson

I think End of Life in that image doesn't mean the same as it does for
Microsoft software (or any other software I know)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-life_%28product%29

In fact version 3.6.6 will be released on April 14th, so I doubt that is the
End of Life, especially because branch 3.6 is not dead (yet)
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/libreoffice-3-6/Win-x86@6/current/
There is possibly going to be a 3.6.7 release?

But I do agree that it would make a LOT of sense to have that established so
that not only some stuff can be cleaned up but also so that people at
AskLibO (or any other support channel) can tell people that the version x is
no longer supported and that they really need to update their software :)

Cheers,
Pedro



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Lifecycle-of-builds-tp4048583p4048605.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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Moztrap] Can someone explain test case #122 to me?

[Petr Mladek]

Yifan Jiang píše v Po 08. 04. 2013 v 15:28 +0800:
> Hi Miguel,
> 
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:42:38AM -0700, mariosv wrote:
> > Hi Thomas, I did the test, and certain that the bad English is mine.
> 
> Hah, actually I tried to make the scenario easier but have never done
> it in a better way, sadly even in Chinese :) I think it is not because
> of English, but the relevant complicated scenario. I feel the steps
> are concise and clear enough, certainly it will be nice when some one
> makes it more generally easy to understand for testers without little
> format conditional background knowledge.

First, I like the complex test for many scenarios.

I was confused by the #6 and #10 column names. I did not read it
carefully, saw numbers and expected row numbers. I would suggest to use
Calc column names 'J' and 'P' instead on the #N indexes ;-)

You could also use the colors for identification, for example, the
tester need to modify cells with the red top and bottom borders.

Otherwise, I wonder if we could optimize the test a bit. In the current
state, you need to click many times just to switch between two values.

One possibility would be to create static test. You crate many rows with
conditional and expected formatting. Some rows might have passing and
some failing condition. It would work if the conditional formatting is
calculated on document load. You might double check this with Markus.

If you really want to do it interactive, it would be better to change
all states by a single selection. You might create one selection box
somewhere, e.g. C5 and change all the values in columns J, L, P, ...
according to this state. For example, using =IF(C5>=1,2,0) in the cell
J6. Then you could change just A1 and visually verify all affected
columns. This will do the same test many times faster and it will be
much easier to describe,


Best Regards,
Petr

___
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/

[Libreoffice-qa] Lifecycle of builds?

[Robinson Tryon]

On the ReleasePlan page[1] we have detailed descriptions of the
release dates of our builds, but I don't see any mention of the End of
Life (EOL) dates for the builds and branches, except for a small note
on the 'Lifecycle' graphic.

Do we have EOL dates in mind for our builds and branches? Is that
something we could include in the tables on the ReleasePlan page?

Perhaps the EOL dates could serve as a trigger for various cleanup
tasks, including removing versions from the drop-down list in FDO (as
recently brought up by Rainer). That would help to simplify and
streamline our process :-)


Cheers,
--R

[1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Removing LibO 3.3 from Versions dropdown in Bugzilla

[Petr Mladek]

Rainer Bielefeld píše v Po 08. 04. 2013 v 07:47 +0200:
> Hi,
> 
> I am thinking about a Version picker cleanup by removing most 3.3. Versions.
> 
> Currently we have 14 different Versions in the picker.
> We obviously still need 3.3.0 Beta 2, what is our Version for 
> "inherited" Bugs.
> 
> Within the last 180 days we had 50 bug reports for the other 3.3. 
> Versions [1], all of them for releases. For Comparison: first 6 Months 
> 1220: 67 reports, 3 ones for releases [2], last 6 Months of 2012 55 
> ones, 3 ones for RC [3].
> 
> For 3.3 we have no bibisecting, so that it is impossible for QA to 
> narrow down appearance of bug precisely, and I doubt that for developers 
> it sould make a big difference whether the report is for 3.3.0 RC3 of 
> 3.3.0 RC4.
> 
> So I believe we should mark the not-release-3.3 as inactive, what means 
> they will stay for the bugs where they are used, but can not be used for 
> new bug reports (except by the LibO Bugzilla Administrators) because 
> they will no longer be shown in the Versions selector.
> 
> If I do not see concerns here I will do the remove End of the week.

Great idea. It makes sense. => +1

Best Regards,
Petr

___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [Moztrap] Can someone explain test case #122 to me?

[Yifan Jiang]

Hi Miguel,

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:42:38AM -0700, mariosv wrote:
> Hi Thomas, I did the test, and certain that the bad English is mine.

Hah, actually I tried to make the scenario easier but have never done
it in a better way, sadly even in Chinese :) I think it is not because
of English, but the relevant complicated scenario. I feel the steps
are concise and clear enough, certainly it will be nice when some one
makes it more generally easy to understand for testers without little
format conditional background knowledge.

Best wishes,
Yifan

-- 
  Yifan Jiang
  Libreoffice / SUSE
  Contact: yifan - irc.freenode.net/libreoffice
  =  
  http://www.libreoffice.org/
  http://www.documentfoundation.org/
___
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/

[Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 3.6.6 RC2 available

[Thorsten Behrens]

Dear Community,

The Document Foundation is happy to announce the first release
candidate of LibreOffice 3.6.6. The upcoming 3.6.6 will be the sixth
in a series of frequent bugfix releases for our stable 3.6
branch. Please be aware that LibreOffice 3.6.6 RC2 is not ready for
production use, you should continue to use LibreOffice 3.6.5 for that.

The release is available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X from our QA
builds download page at

  http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/

Should you find bugs, please report them to the FreeDesktop Bugzilla:

  https://bugs.freedesktop.org

A good way to assess the release candidate quality is to run some
specific manual tests on it, our TCM wiki page has more details:

 
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Regression_Tests#Full_Regression_Test

  - or checkout our manual test database for starting right away -

 http://manual-test.libreoffice.org/runtests/

For other ways to get involved with this exciting project - you can
e.g. contribute code:

  http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/

translate LibreOffice to your language:

  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Translation_for_3.5

or help with funding our operations:

  http://donate.libreoffice.org/

A list of known issues and fixed bugs with 3.6.6 RC2 is available
from our wiki:

  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Releases/3.6.6/RC2

Let us close again with a BIG Thank You! to all of you having
contributed to the LibreOffice project - this release would not have
been possible without your help.

Yours,

The Document Foundation Board of Directors

The Document Foundation, Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] QA Wiki Cleanup - Any Pages not Under ../QA/..?

[Marc Paré]

Le 07/04/13 02:00 PM, Robinson Tryon a écrit :

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Marc Paré  wrote:

Le 05/04/13 05:31 PM, Joel Madero a écrit :


Hi All,

Qubit has done a tremendous amount of work in the past couple days
moving QA related wiki pages to their appropriate location (../QA/..) vs
under root of wiki or elsewhere. Is anyone aware of pages that should be
under QA header but currently are not? If so please let us know so that
we can get them moved.

Also note that we are starting to formalize some of our processes, we've
moved to a much cleaner agenda/minutes setup:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings


Thanks Qubit again for the great work!

...
I am just curious, who is Qubit?


*waves*

I'm 'qubit' on most sites, but 'colonelqubit' on Freenode
:-)

-- Robinson 'qubit' Tryon


Ahh, get a little confusing, but, OK.

Marc


--
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
http://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org

___
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/