Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: increase testing to improve quality
On 29/02/2012, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: There is a web page which describes manual testing: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Manual_Tests. Clearly, there are insufficient testers... Clearly: quote IMPORTANT: Obsoleted by Litmus Litmus is a useful tool for organizing manual tests. Please, help us to migrate all these test cases there and remove them from this wiki page. /quote So why even point 'users' to that page? The initial purpose is to promote the existence of QA testing, both in terms of the history (the wiki) and the future (litmus). Cool. Have you *actually* installed 3.5.1rc1 (as noted in the litmus test)? Description: Test run for *3.5.1 RC* regression testing. Please use *3.5.1 RC* build to test the cases in this run. No, there are no new features of personal interest. If you did (and you'd need to find it someplace other than: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ and (currently) only on http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ you'd find that the install (at least on a debian linux system) smokes your existing 3.5.0 install (remember 3.5.0 is the released version). I don't fully understand, but perhaps this is a serious bug? So, while I (we?) appreciate your efforts to get users on this user list as pre-release testers, I'd be overly cautious about asking users on this list to perform litmus tests... At least not without explaining in *detail* what is required, and how to avoid existing LO standard installations being blown away by a pre-release version. That is valid and is of such high importance to be published on the 'qa' web page! IMO it's probably better for 'users' on this list to wait to test/participate when http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ actually shows a pre-release version. *And* testers understand the implications of testing. This will avoid the LO blew up my thesis and wiped out all of my exisiting templates/files/settings. (Note: I'm not making light of those that do report such, but instead trying to avoid such reports here in the first place as they are *serious* issues can happen if you don't understand what you are doing when you test.) True, but surely users are sufficiently intelligent to understand not to use alpha, beta, pre-release, release candidate, etc. on computers containing important information such as a thesis??? Any competent tester should have a separate machine. -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Re: increase testing to improve quality
On 02/29/2012 03:14 AM, e-letter wrote: On 29/02/2012, NoOp sniprudeemailquotefrome-letter-fixyourclient wrote: There is a web page which describes manual testing: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Manual_Tests. Clearly, there are insufficient testers... Clearly: quote IMPORTANT: Obsoleted by Litmus Litmus is a useful tool for organizing manual tests. Please, help us to migrate all these test cases there and remove them from this wiki page. /quote So why even point 'users' to that page? The initial purpose is to promote the existence of QA testing, both in terms of the history (the wiki) and the future (litmus). And if the manual test is obsolete LO wish to migrate everyone to the litmus test page instead you think it's a good idea to direct users on this list to that page? Seems a bit odd to me. Cool. Have you *actually* installed 3.5.1rc1 (as noted in the litmus test)? Description: Test run for *3.5.1 RC* regression testing. Please use *3.5.1 RC* build to test the cases in this run. No, there are no new features of personal interest. Well you've got me there... You are asking everyone on this list to hop on over perform pre-release testing yet you've not bothered to install do the same? Amazing. If you did (and you'd need to find it someplace other than: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ and (currently) only on http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ you'd find that the install (at least on a debian linux system) smokes your existing 3.5.0 install (remember 3.5.0 is the released version). I don't fully understand, but perhaps this is a serious bug? No. It's not a bug at all. It is a fact of testing. If you actually actively did what you are flogging in this thread (pre-release testing) you'd be well aware of the issues with installing test versions on existing systems. To promote otherwise on *this* list is both disingenuous and dangerous. So, while I (we?) appreciate your efforts to get users on this user list as pre-release testers, I'd be overly cautious about asking users on this list to perform litmus tests... At least not without explaining in *detail* what is required, and how to avoid existing LO standard installations being blown away by a pre-release version. That is valid and is of such high importance to be published on the 'qa' web page! IMO it's probably better for 'users' on this list to wait to test/participate when http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ actually shows a pre-release version. *And* testers understand the implications of testing. This will avoid the LO blew up my thesis and wiped out all of my exisiting templates/files/settings. (Note: I'm not making light of those that do report such, but instead trying to avoid such reports here in the first place as they are *serious* issues can happen if you don't understand what you are doing when you test.) True, but surely users are sufficiently intelligent to understand not to use alpha, beta, pre-release, release candidate, etc. on computers containing important information such as a thesis??? You've already stated that you've not installed/tested/tried 3.5.x yourself (No, there are no new features of personal interest.) and are unaware that the RC does not install as a dev version and installs over the top of a pre-installed 3.5.0 standard version. So... are you sufficiently intelligent enough to understand that your advise made no mention of this? Any competent tester should have a separate machine. Right... Do you? I seriously doubt that. Any competent tester would have tested on his/her own system *first* (with at several OS's) before posting on this list. Did you? Note: If you (or anyone else) is still reading; I highly advocate testing pre-release versions of LO and AOO whenever possible. However I do not advocate posting invites on an LO (or AOO/OOo) user list recommending that the users on the list jump on in and test an alpha/beta/RC version of LO (or anything) without *first* advising the users/testers of the issues (including data loss/profile loss etc) in doing so blindly. @e-letter: I'm not attempting to dissuade you (and others on this list) from from promoting/asking others to assist in testing alpha/beta/RC versions of LO. I *am* attempting to dissuade you from doing this without first: 1) doing it yourself, 2) knowing explaining the benefits hazards of doing the tests, 3) where how to report what you've done/tested. I would add: 4) ensure that any particular user on this list be prepared to *not* attempt to engage in any dev LO devs/lists regarding issues they find with testing these pre-release versions, particularly those that may involve developers as they will be greeted with both animosity and insults in the process. You'll then be asked for a software patch solution to the problem that you've inocently brought up on the dev list, and then be sent to dev-hell because: 1)
[libreoffice-users] Re: increase testing to improve quality
On 02/27/2012 01:37 AM, e-letter wrote: Readers, For those people that consider high quality software to be of highest priority, more important than new features, please help to perform quality assurance manual software tests. There is a web page which describes manual testing: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Manual_Tests. Clearly, there are insufficient testers... Clearly: quote IMPORTANT: Obsoleted by Litmus Litmus is a useful tool for organizing manual tests. Please, help us to migrate all these test cases there and remove them from this wiki page. /quote So why even point 'users' to that page? Please also subscribe to the quality assurance mailing list: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa. There are many bugs that seem to occur after so-called upgrade. People who make the effort to report bugs: please consider how important each bug is. If it is of major importance, the ability to remove the bug must become part of the quality assurance manual test, i.e. the software version is not passed as good quality until that bug is removed. Testing for the success in solving the bug needs to be approved by using 'litmus' (https://tcm.documentfoundation.org). So, the behaviour that caused the bug needs to be recorded and entered into litmus. This should prevent regression bugs and improve software quality in the long-term. Cool. Have you *actually* installed 3.5.1rc1 (as noted in the litmus test)? Description:Test run for *3.5.1 RC* regression testing. Please use *3.5.1 RC* build to test the cases in this run. If you did (and you'd need to find it someplace other than: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ and (currently) only on http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ you'd find that the install (at least on a debian linux system) smokes your existing 3.5.0 install (remember 3.5.0 is the released version). So, while I (we?) appreciate your efforts to get users on this user list as pre-release testers, I'd be overly cautious about asking users on this list to perform litmus tests... At least not without explaining in *detail* what is required, and how to avoid existing LO standard installations being blown away by a pre-release version. IMO it's probably better for 'users' on this list to wait to test/participate when http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ actually shows a pre-release version. *And* testers understand the implications of testing. This will avoid the LO blew up my thesis and wiped out all of my exisiting templates/files/settings. (Note: I'm not making light of those that do report such, but instead trying to avoid such reports here in the first place as they are *serious* issues can happen if you don't understand what you are doing when you test.) Gary Lee -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
