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And if the manual test is obsolete & LO wish to migrate everyone to the litmus test page instead you think it's a good idea to direct users on this list to that page?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) you've dared to bring up a user issue on the dev list, and 2) did not provide the 'devs' with a software patch to fix *your* problem. You'll find the same if you attempt to venture into the LO UI list arena... See: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46073 and https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46305 for nice examples. Seems it's OK to delete a basic LO Writer feature, install a geewiz header/footer "feature" (that consantly polls for your mouse input & thereby taking up unnecessary cpu in the process) and then substitute the standard 'View|Text Boundaries' with either: 1) no boundaries at all (in LO 3.5) or: 2) find that the LO "I've attempted integrate a 'really slick' feature into LO 3.5 & f#uc you if you dare to tell me that it's wrong. No problem - you can easily test yourself... let me know if you can find the "test" version of LO 3.6.x. Not to worry... just build it yourself from Master & Oh BTW, don't worry that the changes aren't available in 3.5.x (where the bug was filed to begin with), we'll take the Ubuntu linux approach and mark the bug as 'fixed' because it will be available in some later version that we've neither released for pre-release testing (that is/was the thing that you were promoting... right?), nor released even in our development builds. But not to worry... we've fixed this, you can't test it, but hey... here's a png of my special build & test. http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Use_of_MailList <quote> Do not mail to the list for: Reporting bugs, or feature requests unless - you are actively soliciting feedback on how best to fix them yourself Reporting bugs is explained here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport User questions and general feature discussions can be done on the lists users@global.libreoffice.org and disc...@documentfoundation.org This mailing list is particularly not a good place to report your views on the general quality, completeness etc. of the software - unless connected with actively working to improve the code. </quote> If this 'user' list would like examples of the above I'll be happy to post them. Anyway, good luck with sucking in unsuspecting *users* on this list to download (over 130MB of data) of some alpha/beta/RC bits, fire it up and have it overwrite their existing LO/OOo (you do realise that the "RC" will do this correct rather than install into a 'dev' opt & profile?)... nah nevermind - you apparently didn't have the intelligence nor the test machine to test before popping up with your 'advise'. -- 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
