On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 00:10 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: > Hi Caolán, *, > > Caolán McNamara wrote (25-07-11 13:27) > > On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 02:18 +0200, Cor Nouws wrote: > >> Still, there are some issues that I would have to advice my > >> customers about (in my work providing professional support for > >> enterprises), since they could have effect on their specific work. > > > > If you wish to have a "enterprise-ready" or "enterprise-ready" concept, > > you then need to have an objective set of criteria that defines what > > that is. A check-list of features, bugs, or something. Ideally something > > which could then be coded into a automated regression test, and make the > > whole thing completely moot by cutting off at the knees the possibility > > of regression/changes happening of becoming non-enterprise ready. > > Sounds interesting to have that, but would very difficult too: what to > include, and what not, etc etc.
My point is just that; I don't know where the "enterprise-ready" term wandered in as a meme, and if it is to be used as an argument for release blocking, schedule changes, criteria for release, argument for defining one version as stable and another not, etc. then surely it has to be accompanied by an objective test. The smoketest.sxw macro using test is a possible model for scripting up some high-level test cases, e.g. there's been a bit of foo around mail merge. It should be possible without any super-dooper development knowledge to knock up a mail merge (non-email) test based on the basic database smoketest section of that. That'd give an objective "enterprise mail-merge requirements pass" test for example. > From the open issues in #35673, IMO some should be looked at (*) by > enterprises, when preparing the upgrade, though some of them are present > in 3.3.x too, I guess. Will try to have a closer look at that last point > (3.3.x <> 3.4.x) tomorrow (or the day after). But can only do that on > Ubuntu, not on Mac or Windows... > > Regards, > Cor > > *) I would advise data-source connection plus mail merge in general, > plus 36631, 39447, 37015, 37024, 37030, 37487, 37620. 38542, 38595, 38745. There's the tangled-up concept of blessing 3.3.X as enterprise-ready and 3.4.X as not. So if an above bug exist in 3.3.X as well as 3.4.Y, then it presumably isn't relevant as a basis in selecting one LibreOffice version over another or as a blocking criteria for the next version, right ?. C. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
