On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 18:04 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
I am personally not completely happy with the proposed solution but I
will explain this in another mail. I would like to keep this one focused
on the way how we change and define QA processes.
I think that Rainer's solution described at
Hi,
I will comment only pieces where I could add something new. I agree with
the rest :-)
On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 14:38 -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Rainer Bielefeld
libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de wrote:
a) We have a report without info concerning Version and
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,
(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
libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de wrote:
Quality Assurance has to do something with quality, and we have to observe
and grant the quality of your own
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? With such a base
improvement seems more
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
QA. Fortunately, Joel White started to be more active at this time and
took some of Rainer's responsibilities, including QA statistic, leading
the QA call, driving forward many QA activities. They both use a bit
different
