On 06/21/2012 10:51 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 21/06/12 21:32, bfo wrote:
Disagree. It is a page for bug reporters. I really like the gerrit migration
and would like to see it integrated with Bugzilla. Also always precommit
hooks can be implemented if developers tend to forget to put a bug numb
On 21.06.2012 22:51, Michael Stahl wrote:
we already have quite a bit of that, comments are added to bugzilla when
a commit mentions a bug, and with gerrit we'll soon handle reviews better.
gerrit bugzilla integration still has to be implemented.
feature set of such integration can be seen here:
On 21/06/12 21:32, bfo wrote:
>
> Petr Mladek wrote
>>
>>> I'd change the workflow a little bit by putting the obvious things at the
>>> top:
>>> - feature requests aka wishlist
>> I do not have any strong opinion for this. I think that it is is good to
>> be able to discuss features, so "enhancem
tions.
>
Not at all. As I am getting into this more and more the time has come to ask
- where I should sign to become QA member (level 1 :))?
> PS: If you reply, please try to configure your mail client, so it puts
> some prefix "> " before the old text and put your answer inline.
>
I am sorry if I produce garbage, but due to various reasons I am using
nabble interface only...
Best regards.
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cleaning-bug-list-tp3988836p3991648.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Hi bfo,
this are interesting questions. I put back QA mailing list into CC
because there people there are interested.
bfo píše v Út 19. 06. 2012 v 11:24 -0700:
> This is a very nice workflow, but I have some questions:
> - how you define "Bug prevent users from making professional quality work?"
length.
If only I had more time to react early in this interesting
discussion :-)
> I had another side question, the response to the thread was made here:
> http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cleaning-bug-list-td3988836i20.html#a3991106
>
> I never got an email about the response
made here:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cleaning-bug-list-td3988836i20.html#a3991106
I never got an email about the response, instead it was only part of the
digest. Is this the norm because the response was made through nabble? I
was just lucky that I read the digest and saw that there
Hi Joel,
Joel Madero píše v Út 19. 06. 2012 v 13:36 -0700:
> I moved this to a new thread because the subject here didn't really
> accurately portray the direction of the conversation
The mail includes many good questions and proposals that might move us
forward. I'll try to answer it later this
I moved this to a new thread because the subject here didn't really
accurately portray the direction of the conversation but I wanted to say I
have uploaded the latest flowchard:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/06/Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg
I wasn't sure how or if I needed a wi
bugs with >300 comments are
useless) would be a release tracking flag, where QA would like to see a fix.
Mozilla projects use them a lot for instance...
Well, sorry for such a pack of off-topic questions, but I'd like to
understand QA in this project better.
Best regards.
--
View this
I agree with the save comment, I'll change that right now. Also
realized I didn't put a note in for regressions so I added to the
bottom notes:
**Regressions**
Special attention should be paid to regressions. In most cases a
regression calls for an increase in priority but in some cases it will
no
Joel Madero píše v Po 18. 06. 2012 v 09:32 -0700:
> Version 2, changed orientation and tried to take comments into
> account. Let me know what you all think.
It is much better readable. I finally got a better picture :-)
Well, I think that it still need some thinking. You set "inability to
safe"
Joel Madero píše v Po 18. 06. 2012 v 07:04 -0700:
> I'll modify the orientation today or tomorrow and try to see where
> regression should fit. I think that it has to go in Priority and not in
> Severity.
Makes sense.
> As for how devs use it, I agree completely that right now it's
> almost u
Rainer Bielefeld píše v Po 18. 06. 2012 v 13:21 +0200:
> Joel Madero schrieb:
> > I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart.
>
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> great to see that all in a chart, your conclusions and definitions seem
> plausible.
>
> But the chart also shows the limitations o
I'll modify the orientation today or tomorrow and try to see where
regression should fit. I think that it has to go in Priority and not in
Severity. As for how devs use it, I agree completely that right now it's
almost useless but maybe if it becomes more uniform and it actually
provides some i
Joel Madero schrieb:
I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart.
Hi Joel,
great to see that all in a chart, your conclusions and definitions seem
plausible.
But the chart also shows the limitations of that concept: It's really
sophisticated, and no developer will sit at
Joel Madero píše v Pá 15. 06. 2012 v 23:09 -0700:
> I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart. Looking
> for input. I read through email threads and see that prioritizing bugs
> has been an interesting discussion but as of now looks to be pretty
> unsettled. I'm going to make a s
Hi Joel,
On 2012-06-15 at 23:09 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart. Looking
> for input. I read through email threads and see that prioritizing bugs
> has been an interesting discussion but as of now looks to be pretty
> unsettled. I'm going t
Sure thing. As soon as I do what I'm considering "Phase 1" (just changing
from UNCONFIRMED to NEEDINFO or NOTOURBUG) I'll be moving to the second
phase which is to prioritize. I'll bookmark those links, appreciate the
heads up. It would be nice if we could get 2-3 people to just pound through
them
Hi Joel,
your plans are great.
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 23:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> With thousands of unknown bugs I think that this will help us divvy up
> the work and prioritize a bit. After I do this phase I'll try to get
> consensus on how to prioritize. Obviously security bugs and resour
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 11:14:05PM +0700, Korrawit Pruegsanusak wrote:
> And yes, the "we" here is now including you, Joel. :-)
Apropos: If you are able, it would be great if you could join the next QA call
- it will be on 2012-06-12 14:00 UTC. Some things are easier to coordinate on
the
pho
I just realized that there is no CONFIRMED, I think this would be a helpful
classification but if it can't/won't be added then I still feel like we
should differentiate confirmed from non confirmed in some manner.
This could be as simple as making it ASSIGNED TO and have it blank or just
default l
Hello Joel, all,
First, a big thank you from me! :-)
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Joel Madero wrote:
> 2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm doing
> the following if there hasn't been action for 30+ days:
> a. If it's stated that the bug was fixed in a recent re
I guess my next question is, if I'm not an "experienced user", can I really
be messing with this at all? I think the flow isn't great and it would be
much better to have a CONFIRMED status and then for the developers to
assign themselves to projects, preferably tackling higher priority bugs
first a
en we can't reproduce the problem, I keep on
proposing it sometimes.
Anyway, really great to have some very useful help on this area :-)
Julien.
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cleaning-bug-list-tp3988836p3988964.html
Sent from the Dev mailing
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:17:51AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> If someone asked "is this reproducible in the latest release", but didn't
> say anything else as to if they themselves had tried to reproduce it. I
> would mark as NEEDINFO. I think that this is a bad policy as we can't
> expect users t
One more thing to add to this. Last night when I did some (I think I did
about 25-50 so it wasn't too many) I was doing the following:
If someone asked "is this reproducible in the latest release", but didn't
say anything else as to if they themselves had tried to reproduce it. I
would mark as NEE
Hi Joel,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:49:52PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over at
> freedesktop bugs
> [...]
> I hope I'm not overstepping, just trying to help as much as possible as it
> seems like there is a bit of a back log. If th
Hi Joel,
On 2012-06-07 at 23:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> 1. If there has been a request for information and there has been no
> response for 30+ days I'm putting NEEDINFO
>
> 2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm
> doing the following if there hasn't been action
Hi Joel,
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 23:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over
> at freedesktop bugs
This is prolly best on the libreoffice-qa list (I just CC'd it) - but
it's interesting on the hackers list too. Your cleanup sounds
Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over at
freedesktop bugs
1. If there has been a request for information and there has been no
response for 30+ days I'm putting NEEDINFO
2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm doing
the following if th
Joel Madero schrieb:
Just a heads up to everyone. I'm doing a serious cleaning of bug
reports. Changing a lot to NEEDINFO, RESOLVED, etc...We have way too
many bugs listed as unknown that haven't been touched in months and have
been confirmed to not be an issue or needs updated without updates fr
Just a heads up to everyone. I'm doing a serious cleaning of bug reports.
Changing a lot to NEEDINFO, RESOLVED, etc...We have way too many bugs
listed as unknown that haven't been touched in months and have been
confirmed to not be an issue or needs updated without updates from original
authors of
33 matches
Mail list logo
