e-letter wrote > > Recent comments in the 'users' mailing list indicate that manual > testing is insufficient. What is the procedure to expand the quantity > and quality of manual tests? > > To improve software quality, especially with reference to regression > of previous bugs, a selection of manual tests based upon certain bugs > should be included in the manual test QA. >
That is quite interesting because what seems insufficient is the number of people doing QA :) There are plenty of automated tools for testing under Linux (e.g. Litmus) but unfortunately I don't know any tool that works under Windows. Please read the archive for this mailing list to verify that regressions are a MAJOR concern for all in this list http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Minutes-QA-related-TSC-call-2012-01-26-tp3695662p3696041.html All help is welcome ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-manual-testing-tp3774646p3774658.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: [email protected] Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
