Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Il 01/09/2011 18:22, Rainer Bielefeld ha scritto:
Carlo Strata schrieb:

- are we sure, once more, that all regressions fixed are than
forward-ported to 3.5.x branch or I can aspect to a "new" related
regression when I'll try to use the future 3.5.x release?


I understand that you might be disappointed concerning my "Major"
instead of "Critical" rating for "your"
<>. Can you suggest
one "critical" one that can be downrated to "major", because it is
less important for the LibO project than Bug 39355, so that we can
rise importance for Bug 39355?


I think you are able answering yourself about this... I want simply say that all already critical bugs are correctly considered, but if we are going on enterprise side, we have to cure document qualities: like standard adherence, rendering quality, print quality *with the same attention level.*

I obviously not refer to "my" 39355 bug, but to various other ones related to pdf/A-1a or Calc printing, calc imagine downshifting, ...

Remember, Rainer, I want to help not to criticize without usefulness! :-)

Look at my mail in her globality, guess the deep mean, ...

I'm afraid all this "we have to rise quality" discussion leads to

Are you sure? ;-)

I instead think to have pointed out many interesting issue that may be discussed and perhaps improved.

Currently the problem is that we get more bug reports that can be
fixed (or at least: handled) - do you know my statistics on
The only way how we really get improvement is to use our limited
(developer-) manpower as efficient as possible. That's the goal our QA
efforts try to reach.
No, I didn't, now I have seen them. Very interesting and useful. As well as want to be my mail!!!
Now we are speaking... there is communication between us... :-)

Currently one of our ideas is to do do all fixes in the Master
(currently 3.5) and then to "cherry pick" the fixes to the branches
(currently 3.3, 3.4). That's the result of several discussions, we
think that that is the most efficient way.

Ok, I can surely share this way, but there are many way to improve backporting such as Google SoC, some specific financing, University Thesis, ... We at PLIO (an "old" OOo Italian Project) have decided to "sponsor" some Libò projects but all is stopped!!! We are Human Being: we can change things, we do change things.

So may 3.5.x be from the start (.0 and .1) a branch stabler than 3.4.x will ever be? And so 3.4 will be rapidly closed at 3.5 time?

To keep the master in a good shape we currently try to eliminate
regressions in the Master as quick as possible. So I try to check these

Bugs whether they are regressions compared to 3.4.3.
Those fixes should be done with high priority, and if that work has
been done, we hope to get other branch bugs more quickly.

For that cause, because regression fix has an onerous (money, time, ...) cost, sometime I ask myself if regressions may, somewhat, being avoided keeping more attention to wokflow or decide if somewhat may be partially engineered again or something like that...

Many eyes may seen better than few ones... moreover if these few ones are busy a lot.

You know
and <>? It
would be great if you could support that Master testing by simply
adding your results in a comment and adding me to CC.

I will try to help us (!) doing this in my spare time. I already do many test and I will post in bugzill since Novell Go-OO time... ;-)

Kind regards and thank you for your Bugzilla activity


If we go only a step over we certainly could drink a fresh beer with Libò people!!! :-)

Have a nice Sunday!


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.