You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> on 2011/11/23 08:58:44 UTC
[AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
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:
1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
Verification Testing(BVT in short).
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.
4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
6. Build private build before official build is ready
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
Welcome your comments.
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/23/11 11:07 AM, L'oiseau de mer wrote:
> Why not Solaris x86 version?
If somebody takes care of it why not. It is always the same the work has
to be done and somebody has to focus on this platform. If it is
important for you feel free to join the project and take care of it. I
am sure will get the necessary support.
As we have discussed earlier on this mailing list we plan to concentrate
on Linux, Windows and MacOS as the most important and used Desktop
systems. And we will not drop active any code that is important for
other platforms. But we will concentrate our efforts on the most
important platforms.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
Juergen
>
> 2011/11/23 xia zhao<li...@gmail.com>:
>> 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:
>>
>> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
>> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
>> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
>> 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.
>> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
>> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
>> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
>> 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
>>
>> Welcome your comments.
>>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by L'oiseau de mer <oi...@gmail.com>.
Why not Solaris x86 version?
2011/11/23 xia zhao <li...@gmail.com>:
> 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:
>
> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
> 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.
> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
> 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
>
> Welcome your comments.
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/23/2011 09:48 AM, schrieb Raphael Bircher:
> Am 23.11.11 08:58, schrieb xia zhao:
>> 7. Platform will be covered
>>
>> - OS2
> If sameone is realy willing to do a OS2 port but it have to be serios,
> else I propose to not support this official.
It seems you have missed the many commits from Petro (and Yuri) for the
OS/2 port. ;-) Because of this I see this as actual serious work here.
Marcus
RE: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
There is more on this thread, but this is an useful message to tack some observations to.
- Dennis
OT: QA is far more than testing. Just saying.
PS: I think the Xia Zhao discussion post is great, and it is bringing out some terrific discussion on something that needs to be foreseen.
<orcmid comments="in-line" />
-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischmidt@googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 01:16
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
On 11/23/11 9:48 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> Am 23.11.11 08:58, schrieb xia zhao:
>> 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:
>>
>> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
>> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
>> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
>> 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.
> Sorry, forget Testcases. OOo is simply to big to test it with testcase.
> Testcases make only sense, if you can cover a software with it. What
> would be more usfull is a weekly journal of the changes. So Intuitive
> tester know where they have to search the bugs.
i disagree here, having a base set of tests that we should run for every
release is important from my point view. I agree that it make sense to
focus on areas where we have made changes, especially when we take the
number of resources into account.
But anyway having test cases for at least the most important functions
and features is a good idea and helps other people to easy get started.
<orcmid>
I agree that being able to duplicate tests and test results is
important for newcomers to confirm their own builds and their own
findings with documents that have problems, etc. Everything to do
with that kind of test is important to have available to beginners.
In contrast, isn't it very difficult to do organized pre-released
manual testing in an open-source, volunteer-based project. I can
understand how valuable it is to have automated tests to ensure that
something hasn't been broken and the build is sound.
And, of course, the place to look for regression is among the presumably-
fixed bugs. Are they really fixed (and are there automatically-
executable test cases on the end-product that can determine that)?
[Raised elsewhere on this thread] If it takes professional, paid QA
for dependable releases to be created, this project will have failed.
</orcmid>
>> And then report defects in
>> Apache Bugzilla.
>> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
>> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
>> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
> why not use the original wiki http://wiki.services.openoffice.org wich
we have to clarify in general which wiki we want use in the future. I
think this question isn't really answered but we shoidl open a new
thread for this topic.
<orcmid>
I don't think the OpenOffice.org wiki should be used for this.
It looks like OOOUSERS is a better place. Next would be OOODEV
although I think experience has been that OOOUSERS is the
preferable place if possible.
There could be a separate discuss for this, but I think CTR
on OOOUSERS will happen.
</orcmid>
> is also at Apache now?
>> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
>> 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
> We build against the 10.4 SDK so we also cover
> -10.5
> -10.4
>> - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?)
>> - OS2
> If sameone is realy willing to do a OS2 port but it have to be serios,
> else I propose to not support this official.
>
We have seen patches for OS/2 and if somebody is working on it it's
fine. I think OS/2 won't be a blocker for us to release anything. I
think the important platforms for us are Windows, Linux and MacOS, correct?
<orcmid>
I think the platform cases are going to depend on who there are active
developers and folks for the necessary localization, QA, etc.
I do indeed expect that a 64-bit distribution will be required for
Windows at some point. It will have to be in addition to a 32-bit
one for some time, especially because of any differences at
integration points for plug-ins, etc. Side-by-side installation
will need to work also. (I.e., both 64-bit and 32-bit.)
That includes side-by-side with other distributions for that matter.
That's a different topic though.
This will be inevitable, and it depends on having supportive developers
the same as any other platform choice.
</orcmid>
Juergen
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/23/11 9:48 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> Am 23.11.11 08:58, schrieb xia zhao:
>> 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:
>>
>> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
>> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
>> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
>> 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.
> Sorry, forget Testcases. OOo is simply to big to test it with testcase.
> Testcases make only sense, if you can cover a software with it. What
> would be more usfull is a weekly journal of the changes. So Intuitive
> tester know where they have to search the bugs.
i disagree here, having a base set of tests that we should run for every
release is important from my point view. I agree that it make sense to
focus on areas where we have made changes, especially when we take the
number of resources into account.
But anyway having test cases for at least the most important functions
and features is a good idea and helps other people to easy get started.
>> And then report defects in
>> Apache Bugzilla.
>> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
>> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
>> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
> why not use the original wiki http://wiki.services.openoffice.org wich
we have to clarify in general which wiki we want use in the future. I
think this question isn't really answered but we shoidl open a new
thread for this topic.
> is also at Apache now?
>> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
>> 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
> We build against the 10.4 SDK so we also cover
> -10.5
> -10.4
>> - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?)
>> - OS2
> If sameone is realy willing to do a OS2 port but it have to be serios,
> else I propose to not support this official.
>
We have seen patches for OS/2 and if somebody is working on it it's
fine. I think OS/2 won't be a blocker for us to release anything. I
think the important platforms for us are Windows, Linux and MacOS, correct?
Juergen
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Raphael Bircher <r....@gmx.ch>.
Am 23.11.11 08:58, schrieb xia zhao:
> 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:
>
> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
> 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.
Sorry, forget Testcases. OOo is simply to big to test it with testcase.
Testcases make only sense, if you can cover a software with it. What
would be more usfull is a weekly journal of the changes. So Intuitive
tester know where they have to search the bugs.
> And then report defects in
> Apache Bugzilla.
> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
why not use the original wiki http://wiki.services.openoffice.org wich
is also at Apache now?
> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
> 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
We build against the 10.4 SDK so we also cover
-10.5
-10.4
> - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?)
> - OS2
If sameone is realy willing to do a OS2 port but it have to be serios,
else I propose to not support this official.
--
My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
I forgot an important point
Le 23 nov. 11 à 08:58, xia zhao a écrit :
> 7. Platform will be covered
>
>
[..cut...]
>
> - Redhat 6 32 bit/64 bit
> - Ubuntu 10.04 32 bit/64 bit
We need to clarify what we'll do with Debian and Ubuntu distributions.
Waiting, can someone tell me what currently returns : apt-get
install openoffice.org
... on Debian, and Ubuntu ?
Other point : as I wrote recently, I think I we could produce .deb
using another way. The basical idea, is to build an "installed" set,
and then, create the final archive using dh_make.
Last but not least: it should be possible to not restart from the
begining, using 'apt-get source openoffice.org ' (or some similar
command line)
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/23/2011 10:58 PM, schrieb Joost Andrae:
>> 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.
>>
>
> test cases should be separated into UI tests and into functional tests
> because UI test cases are needed to have some kind of get well plan (or
> release test) for localized releases and functional tests to go into the
> deep functionality of newly implemented features and to assure the
> quality of new code commits to existent functionality. In the past
> localized OpenOffice.org builds were mostly released by their respective
> native language teams after the "un-localized" en-US build has been
> released after finishing the functional QA.
> Localization tests for releases are important to assure that localized
> builds do not crash what may happen in case resource files have build
> errors like to have a turned bit in a resource file - an error that
> cannot be found in an functional test that is mostly done within an
> en-US build.
Additionally I think we will have to talk about how a release should be
done in the future. How deep the testing has to be done for localized
builds, how do/if we accept stopper that would stop the entire release,
releasing all languages at once or in parts, etc.
> btw.
>
> In the past OpenOffice.org had a lot more platform builds released like
>
> Linux_HPPA (deb)
> Linux_IA64 (rpm)
> Linux_PPC (rpm)
> Linux_S390X (rpm)
Thats correct. These 4 builds (en-US only) came from Caolán McNamara.
After the 3.3 release was done I've asked him beginnig of February but
also for LO he hasn't done these builds yet. Also he didn't know if he
would find the time for doing it again for 3.3.
In the meantime I think that the 3.2.1 builds will be the last that we
will see for these platforms.
> MacOS_PPC (dmg)
Hm, maybe Maho will find a way back to his PPC. ;-)
> Solaris_Sparc (pkg)
No hardware -> no build -> no release.
But, hey, surprise me.
> Solaris_x86 (pkg)
Should be easier to find some volunteers because even in a VM this could
be done.
PS:
As said also in the past, I'm open for any platform and language. I love
diversity because it makes possible that everybody has a chance to work
with OOo.
Marcus
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Joost Andrae <Jo...@gmx.de>.
Hi,
>
> 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.
>
test cases should be separated into UI tests and into functional tests
because UI test cases are needed to have some kind of get well plan (or
release test) for localized releases and functional tests to go into the
deep functionality of newly implemented features and to assure the
quality of new code commits to existent functionality. In the past
localized OpenOffice.org builds were mostly released by their respective
native language teams after the "un-localized" en-US build has been
released after finishing the functional QA.
Localization tests for releases are important to assure that localized
builds do not crash what may happen in case resource files have build
errors like to have a turned bit in a resource file - an error that
cannot be found in an functional test that is mostly done within an
en-US build.
btw.
In the past OpenOffice.org had a lot more platform builds released like
Linux_HPPA (deb)
Linux_IA64 (rpm)
Linux_PPC (rpm)
Linux_S390X (rpm)
MacOS_PPC (dmg)
Solaris_Sparc (pkg)
Solaris_x86 (pkg)
Kind regards, Joost
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by xia zhao <li...@gmail.com>.
2011/12/19, Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>:
> 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 <ey...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'll ask tomorrow at our regular meeting with the project lead.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:41 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2011/12/8, Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>:
>>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com> 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 <ey...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>.
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. 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?
Greetings
Andor Ertsey
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'll ask tomorrow at our regular meeting with the project lead.
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:41 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/12/8, Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>:
>>> 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 <li...@gmail.com> 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 <ey...@googlemail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>.
I'll ask tomorrow at our regular meeting with the project lead.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 2:41 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/12/8, Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>:
>> 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 <li...@gmail.com> 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 <ey...@googlemail.com>
>>>
>>>> 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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by xia zhao <li...@gmail.com>.
2011/12/8, Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>:
> 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 <li...@gmail.com> 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 <ey...@googlemail.com>
>>
>>> 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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
I almost missed your mail. When I got no response to my offer, I
thought there was no interest.
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?
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.
Greetings
Andor Ertsey
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:54 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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 <ey...@googlemail.com>
>
>> 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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by xia zhao <li...@gmail.com>.
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 <ey...@googlemail.com>
> 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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
> >>
> >
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Andor E <ey...@googlemail.com>.
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 <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by xia zhao <li...@gmail.com>.
Rob,
2011/11/23 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
>
Yes, I agree our focus would be Linux, Windows and Mac.
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.
Yes. For FreeBSD, OS2 Port or Solaris, if OpenOffice users would like
contribute their effort on these platforms it is appreciated. But these
platforms without enough volunteers to complete the test plan would not
have offical Apache release.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Totally agree.
> -Rob
>
> > Welcome your comments.
> >
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM, xia zhao <li...@gmail.com> 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.
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/23/11 12:01 PM, eric b wrote:
> Hi Jürgen,
>
> Le 23 nov. 11 à 11:30, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
>>>
>>> The current step is :
>>>
>>> - IP clearance (not completed if I'm not wrong)
>>> - fix build issues and see what disasters caused the removing of
>>> important tools, like dmake and some other.
>>
>> yes and every helping hand is very much appreciated. I would really
>> like to see more people working on this
>>
>>>
>>> Next one will probably be :
>>>
>>> - consolidate the build (on every OS)
>> what do you mean here
>>
>
> Currently, code is removed, and every commit, we are not sure the build
> can finish. I'd consider this as undefined / chaotic state, that we need
> to consolidate.
>
>
>
>>> - optimize configure command line
>> again, can you explain what exactly do you mean
>
>
> The configure command line uses to differ from one OS to another. For a
> given OS, we need to define one "default" configure command line, saying
> how to build the Official Apache OpenOffice.org, and reproduce, as
> precisely as possible the same build (never possible, I know).
>
> This is the sense of "optimized" I have in mind.
>
>
>
>>> - optimize build dependencies for every OS
>>> - find and welcome newcomers, and builders on every OS
>> should be an ongoing effort
>>
>
>
> I think we have several volunteers around, indeed :-)
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> As volunteer, I remember I stopped to commit any cws and to contribute
>>> directly to OpenOffice.org, because of excessive, stupid and boring QA.
>> well that's your personal view
>
> Yes, it is.
>
>
>> that i can't share and that we hopefully will not follow here.
>>
>
> No problem.
>
> At the end of Oracle OpenOffice.org time, I remember 20% max of the my
> devel time was learn the bug or the feature, write code and commit it.
> And 80% of it was QA stuff,or whatever I didn't care, like click the
> right blocking checkbox / button on EIS, being blocked, or redo several
> times the same fail with bots, because the bot was broken, or being
> blocked by other OS, not concerned by the cws itself :-) , or something
> similar.
>
> I think we should trash that, but I can perfectly understand people
> disagree my point of view :-)
well i haven't had in mind what we had before. And i think you mix some
things here. QA is indeed often more work than specifying and
implementing a new feature. With QA i mean the development of tests (in
case of unit tests) as well as the final execution of these test or even
manual tests.
But we should combine these things with a broken or not optimal
framework to track QA efforts or so. You talk mainly about your
frustration with the provided tooling. I can share your view here but
then we should start to make it better or different than in the past.
It's up to us to define and build something new, that works better and
is satisfying for all. Nobody needs frustration, we want to have fun ;-)
Juergen
>
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi Jürgen,
Le 23 nov. 11 à 11:30, Jürgen Schmidt a écrit :
>>
>> The current step is :
>>
>> - IP clearance (not completed if I'm not wrong)
>> - fix build issues and see what disasters caused the removing of
>> important tools, like dmake and some other.
>
> yes and every helping hand is very much appreciated. I would really
> like to see more people working on this
>
>>
>> Next one will probably be :
>>
>> - consolidate the build (on every OS)
> what do you mean here
>
Currently, code is removed, and every commit, we are not sure the
build can finish. I'd consider this as undefined / chaotic state,
that we need to consolidate.
>> - optimize configure command line
> again, can you explain what exactly do you mean
The configure command line uses to differ from one OS to another. For
a given OS, we need to define one "default" configure command line,
saying how to build the Official Apache OpenOffice.org, and
reproduce, as precisely as possible the same build (never possible, I
know).
This is the sense of "optimized" I have in mind.
>> - optimize build dependencies for every OS
>> - find and welcome newcomers, and builders on every OS
> should be an ongoing effort
>
I think we have several volunteers around, indeed :-)
>
>>
>> As volunteer, I remember I stopped to commit any cws and to
>> contribute
>> directly to OpenOffice.org, because of excessive, stupid and
>> boring QA.
> well that's your personal view
Yes, it is.
> that i can't share and that we hopefully will not follow here.
>
No problem.
At the end of Oracle OpenOffice.org time, I remember 20% max of the
my devel time was learn the bug or the feature, write code and commit
it. And 80% of it was QA stuff,or whatever I didn't care, like click
the right blocking checkbox / button on EIS, being blocked, or redo
several times the same fail with bots, because the bot was broken, or
being blocked by other OS, not concerned by the cws itself :-) , or
something similar.
I think we should trash that, but I can perfectly understand people
disagree my point of view :-)
Regards,
Eric
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/23/11 9:55 AM, eric b wrote:
>
> Le 23 nov. 11 à 08:58, xia zhao a écrit :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>> I think it's time for use to discuss and detail AOO 3.4 test plan now.
>> Basically at current time I suggest:
>>
>> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
>> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
>> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
>
>
> Can you explain further please ?
>
>
>
>> 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.
>> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
>> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
>> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
>
>
>
> Repeat builds over and over builds is always a good idea, like provide
> some of them for testing purpose, using Apache home, e.g.
>
> As example, using Raphael builds :
> http://people.apache.org/~rbircher/builds
>
> Is this what you mean with "private builds" ?
>
>
>
>> 7. Platform will be covered
>>
>>
>> - Windows XP
>> - Win7 32bit/64bit
>
>
> Do we really (need to) provide 64 bits version on windows ?
>
>
>> - 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
>
>
> Please keep Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 compatibility as long as possible.
>
>
>
>> - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?)
>> - OS2
>>
>> Welcome your comments.
>
>
>
> I think it's far too early.
i don't think so, we have a lot of things to do here to ensure the
quality. And it's better to start early than too late.
>
>
> The current step is :
>
> - IP clearance (not completed if I'm not wrong)
> - fix build issues and see what disasters caused the removing of
> important tools, like dmake and some other.
yes and every helping hand is very much appreciated. I would really like
to see more people working on this
>
> Next one will probably be :
>
> - consolidate the build (on every OS)
what do you mean here
> - optimize configure command line
again, can you explain what exactly do you mean
> - optimize build dependencies for every OS
> - find and welcome newcomers, and builders on every OS
should be an ongoing effort
> - start to see whether blockers exist (crashes, important features
> missing ...) or other big issues appeared since the 3.4.0rc
> - start with localized builds, see where we are ... and so on
>
>
> About QA, I'd better see start to investigate about the existing tests /
> unit tests, and improve.
>
> To be frank, my opinion is that if serious QA is done, this must be made
> as transparently as possible, by paid people from companies, but not
> volunteers.
i disagree here. If somebody has the knowledge and time to work on this
why not. Every helping hand is welcome and writing tests shouldn't be
rocket science if the framework is easy enough if we have people who are
willing to guide others.
>
> As volunteer, I remember I stopped to commit any cws and to contribute
> directly to OpenOffice.org, because of excessive, stupid and boring QA.
well that's your personal view that i can't share and that we hopefully
will not follow here.
>
> Anyway, I wish you as much of people to folllow you :-)
it would be more help if you would join the efforts because we all want
stable and good office suite. So QA is in the interest of all of us.
Juergen
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 11/23/2011 09:55 AM, schrieb eric b:
>
> Le 23 nov. 11 à 08:58, xia zhao a écrit :
>
>> 7. Platform will be covered
>>
>> - Windows XP
>> - Win7 32bit/64bit
>
> Do we really (need to) provide 64 bits version on windows ?
It was meant to test on the platform "Windows 7 64-bit". Not to deliver
64-bit AOO builds for Windows. ;-)
Marcus
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by xia zhao <li...@gmail.com>.
2011/11/23 eric b <er...@free.fr>
>
> Le 23 nov. 11 à 08:58, xia zhao a écrit :
>
> Hi all,
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I think it's time for us to discuss and detail AOO 3.4 test plan now.
>> Basically at current time I suggest:
>>
>> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
>> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
>> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
>>
>
>
> Can you explain further please ?
>
> Here I means start from utilizing automation testing tool(suggest new tool
>> due to VCL tool is not easy to use from my view) to execute some "build-in"
>> testing. These kind of testing may at one smoke-testing level. Like what
>> old oo did.
>
>
> 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.
>> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
>>
>> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
>> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
>>
>
>
>
> Repeat builds over and over builds is always a good idea, like provide
> some of them for testing purpose, using Apache home, e.g.
>
> As example, using Raphael builds : http://people.apache.org/~**
> rbircher/builds <http://people.apache.org/~rbircher/builds>
>
> Is this what you mean with "private builds" ?
>
> Yes but not eaaxtly. If volunter can get public build or build from
> others,that will be ok. But if no build can be used for testing. Volunteer
> may build his/her own build for testing purpose.
>
>
> 7. Platform will be covered
>>
>>
>> - Windows XP
>> - Win7 32bit/64bit
>>
>
>
> Do we really (need to) provide 64 bits version on windows ?
>
> 64 bits Windows version isn't needed. But testing should be done against
> 64bits Windows platform.
>
> - 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
>>
>
>
> Please keep Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 compatibility as long as possible.
>
>
>
> - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?)
>> - OS2
>>
>> Welcome your comments.
>>
>
>
>
> I think it's far too early.
>
>
> The current step is :
>
> - IP clearance (not completed if I'm not wrong)
> - fix build issues and see what disasters caused the removing of important
> tools, like dmake and some other.
>
> Next one will probably be :
>
> - consolidate the build (on every OS)
> - optimize configure command line
> - optimize build dependencies for every OS
> - find and welcome newcomers, and builders on every OS
> - start to see whether blockers exist (crashes, important features missing
> ...) or other big issues appeared since the 3.4.0rc
> - start with localized builds, see where we are ... and so on
>
>
> About QA, I'd better see start to investigate about the existing tests /
> unit tests, and improve.
>
I agree with you on this point.
To be frank, my opinion is that if serious QA is done, this must be made as
transparently as possible, by paid people from companies, but not
volunteers.
As volunteer, I remember I stopped to commit any cws and to contribute
directly to OpenOffice.org, because of excessive, stupid and boring QA.
Anyway, I wish you as much of people to folllow you :-)
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids :
http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/**index.php/Main_Page<http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page>
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: [AOO 3.4 Test Plan Discussion]Overview
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Le 23 nov. 11 à 08:58, xia zhao a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
Hi,
> I think it's time for use to discuss and detail AOO 3.4 test plan now.
> Basically at current time I suggest:
>
> 1. Leverage OpenOffice users on General Usage test
> 2. Focus on establishing automation mechanism. Start from Build
> Verification Testing(BVT in short).
Can you explain further please ?
> 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.
> 4. Focus on Performance Verification Testing(PVT in short)
> investigation, and setup benchmark PVT environment.
> 5. Establish QA entry in AOO wiki https://cwiki.apache.org/
> 6. Build private build before official build is ready
Repeat builds over and over builds is always a good idea, like
provide some of them for testing purpose, using Apache home, e.g.
As example, using Raphael builds : http://people.apache.org/
~rbircher/builds
Is this what you mean with "private builds" ?
> 7. Platform will be covered
>
>
> - Windows XP
> - Win7 32bit/64bit
Do we really (need to) provide 64 bits version on windows ?
> - 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
Please keep Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 compatibility as long as possible.
> - FreeBSD 9.0/8.2 (9.0 is suppose to release at 12/07/2011?)
> - OS2
>
> Welcome your comments.
I think it's far too early.
The current step is :
- IP clearance (not completed if I'm not wrong)
- fix build issues and see what disasters caused the removing of
important tools, like dmake and some other.
Next one will probably be :
- consolidate the build (on every OS)
- optimize configure command line
- optimize build dependencies for every OS
- find and welcome newcomers, and builders on every OS
- start to see whether blockers exist (crashes, important features
missing ...) or other big issues appeared since the 3.4.0rc
- start with localized builds, see where we are ... and so on
About QA, I'd better see start to investigate about the existing
tests / unit tests, and improve.
To be frank, my opinion is that if serious QA is done, this must be
made as transparently as possible, by paid people from companies, but
not volunteers.
As volunteer, I remember I stopped to commit any cws and to
contribute directly to OpenOffice.org, because of excessive, stupid
and boring QA.
Anyway, I wish you as much of people to folllow you :-)
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news