micklweiss at gmx.net
Fri Jul 15 15:31:24 UTC 2005
Frédéric Buclin wrote:
I think that a QA team is a great idea. I'm working on this on other
projects. If I wasn't so busy with the other projects, I would have
I just had a thought though, would someone be willing to setup a box
with Bugzilla on Windows or Bugzilla w/ Postgresql for use with testing?
Obviously the box would need to be up all the time.
I say this since I'm sure that there are developers out there who don't
have access to a box (I can't be the only person). I only run OSX and
So here is an example... I personally don't use Windows, and I haven't
needed to set it up in ages. (this is not meant to be flame bait so
please don't flame me). Not to mention, I don't have the extra hardware.
Someone may argue that hardware is cheap now-a-days.... and I may be the
only person with this problem.
My thought was, someone could perhaps setup a box w/ VMWare (or
similar), with various versions of Windows (since different things
happen in different versions) and have automatic installs of the latest
version of Bugzilla. Then have both automatic and manual tests.
This is just a thought.
For people new to writing test cases in Perl, I recommend that you look @:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Simple/ (of course Test::Deep and
Test::More) there was an article on perl.com about creating Test
libraries a while back otherwise a really basic example is here:
> Due to our broken 2.18.2 release last week, we decided to create a QA
> team to avoid such thing again. Actually, we are two reviewers in this
> team: Teemu Mannermaa (aka wicked or Zornreich) and myself. A third
> reviewer may join the team soon depending on his new job: Byron Jones
> (aka glob).
> The PostgreSQL support is still experimental in 2.20 but we will very
> soon require someone using it on a daily basis to test and make sure
> everything works fine in future releases.
> So if some of you (no need to be a Bugzilla expert to help) are
> interested in joining the team or simply help us occasionally to have
> non-broken releases (let's hope 2.18.4 will not be followed two days
> later by 2.18.5), please contact me, either directly in IRC (nick:
> LpSolit) or per email at LpSolit at gmail.com, or by replying to
> developers at bugzilla.org. Also, I'm especially interested in users or
> developers using Bugzilla on Windows and/or using PostgreSQL.
> A few words about what will change for future releases:
> - No checkin will be allowed at least 24/48 hours before a release,
> allowing the QA team to test the new release as much as possible and
> fix regressions *before* the release instead of after. For comparison,
> we did 24 checkins less than 18 hours before releasing 2.20rc1/2.18.2.
> That was far too much and gave us no chance to catch regressions on
> time (in fact, a first regression was found and fixed on time, but we
> missed the second one).
> - For those who have editbugs privileges on b.m.o, you are free to add
> the 'qawanted' keyword to bugs to specify that some attention is
> required from the QA team. Use this keyword when a bug needs a
> testcase, additional information or looks like a regression. If you
> cannot add this keyword due to restrictions on your account, please
> set the flag to either blocking2.18.x? or blocking2.20? depending on
> which versions are affected. mkanat, justdave, myk or anyone else with
> enough privileges can then set the 'qawanted' keyword for you. Please
> *do not* use this keyword for bugs requesting new features (bugs
> marked as 'enhancement'). I will ignore those bugs.
> Please don't remove the 'qawanted' keyword unless you belong to the
> QA team.
> - Remaining things are internal to the QA team. ;)
> Thank you for your attention.
> Have a nice week-end,
> Frederic "LpSolit" Buclin
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
More information about the developers