Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Moztrap rights

Hi Nino, I have updated all your asked permission :) Thanks for your interests to contribute! Please be aware I did an upgrade of the server to 1.3.7 a month ago, and got authentication code merged. Just in case, though I didn't get anything negative till now, please let me know if you have troub

[Libreoffice-qa] [LibreOffice-QA] Conference Call - March 22nd, 2013 - 1400 UTC

Hi All, Our next conference call details are below, currently the agenda is empty, I'll be working on it over the next couple days, feel free to add new items. Date: Friday, March 22nd, 2013 Time: 1400 UTC Duration: ~1 hour I will be working on the agenda this afternoon and tomorrow. Current age

[Libreoffice-qa] Moztrap rights

Hi Sophie (or whoever has Admin rights over Moztrap), long ago I created 3 users to test Moztrap, nnino nnino2 nnino3 But none of them seems to have Manager rights. Could you please re-assign rights to these users and grant them the following: nnino -> Tester nnino2 -> Creator nnino3 -> Mana

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Manual testing: Litmus or Moztrap?

Hi Sophie, thanks for the quick answer :-) further remarks/explanations: Am 20.03.2013 14:46, schrieb Sophie Gautier: On 20/03/2013 14:09, Nino Novak wrote: Q1: Is it correct that Moztrap is ready and should be used for manual testing? Is Litmus definitively obsolete? (there are several lin

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Manual testing: Litmus or Moztrap?

Hi Nino, On 20/03/2013 14:09, Nino Novak wrote: > Hi all, > > recently we had a short discussion about manual testing in the > Germanophone list with some questions left. > > Q1: Is it correct that Moztrap is ready and should be used for manual > testing? Is Litmus definitively obsolete? (there a

[Libreoffice-qa] Manual testing: Litmus or Moztrap?

Hi all, recently we had a short discussion about manual testing in the Germanophone list with some questions left. Q1: Is it correct that Moztrap is ready and should be used for manual testing? Is Litmus definitively obsolete? (there are several links from the wiki to Litmus) Q2: I did not

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Rename bug or open new one?

Nevermind. User already changed the bug status to CLOSED NOTABUG. So I opened a new one https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62554 -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Rename-bug-or-open-new-one-tp4044967p4044989.html Sent from the QA mailing list arch

[Libreoffice-qa] Rename bug or open new one?

Hi all What is the appropriate procedure in this case? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42807 Should this bug report be closed and created a new one referring to all items that should be disabled in Calc and Writer? Or is it enough to modify the Summary and Description? -- Pedro

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Translations BSA

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Rob, On 19/03/2013 23:34, Rob Snelders wrote: > Hi, > > I have made a few changes to the BSA. But as there isn't yet a > good translations-process in place I will send texts for > translations to you. ok, no problem > > Can you please translate t

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Explanations on the NL BSA purpose

Hi Sophie, with the fix for "Bug 60958 BUGZILLAASSISTANT: Greeting text should tell that goal is to make bug reproducible" the greeting text now tells the requirements for a good report some more clearly. I recommend to adapt the French gr