Cor Nouws wrote:
Also I think QA@ is a good thing.
I think I fundamentally disagree on this one - the interface between
QA and Dev is incredibly huge, I'd even venture the proposition that
ideally there's no difference (in core competencies - maybe there is
one in attitude ;)) - at any rate, the chasm between the OpenOffice
project's QA and Dev teams is something I *do not* want to
transplant into our new project.
Ideally, I want QA folks to take notice if the Devs start debating
details of specific features, and conversely, I want Devs to take
notice of QA talking about specific "problem areas" in the product.
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to email@example.com
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
- Re: [tdf-discuss] [MAILING LIST] interim structuring - a proposal (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy