Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Thorsten,

2010/10/4 Thorsten Behrens <>:
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.

But you should also be aware that there are much qa-people which are
doing just testing.
These are not so "technical" and wouldn't like to read or even
understand the things on the dev-list. And there is much
organisational stuff around the testing which wouldn't interest the

Just my 2c

To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.
List archives are available at


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.