[Libreoffice-qa] Most infamous NeedInfo bugs?
Hi guys, What NeedInfo bugs[1] do you hate (or love) the most? I'll bring up a handful of bugs during the ESC call tomorrow, so let me know which ones are most deserving of developer eyeballs. Thanks, --R [1] There are currently 32 NeedInfo bugs: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrquery_format=advancedstatus_whiteboard=NeedAdvicebug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDproduct=LibreOfficelist_id=438126 -- Robinson Tryon LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald Senior QA Bug Wrangler The Document Foundation qu...@libreoffice.org ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Most infamous NeedInfo bugs?
NeedInfo or NeedDevEval? Best, Joel On 06/25/2014 10:10 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote: Hi guys, What NeedInfo bugs[1] do you hate (or love) the most? I'll bring up a handful of bugs during the ESC call tomorrow, so let me know which ones are most deserving of developer eyeballs. Thanks, --R [1] There are currently 32 NeedInfo bugs: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrquery_format=advancedstatus_whiteboard=NeedAdvicebug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDproduct=LibreOfficelist_id=438126 ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Most infamous NeedInfo bugs?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: (I see 32 as 'NeedAdvice' and 10 as 'NeedDevEval'. Was there a whiteboard renaming there?) Crap you're right - NeedAdvice - but I don't think it's NeedInfo ;) True, true. NeedDevEval = ProposedEasyHack - it would be nice to get a bit of love there also but I know you're referring to NeedAdvice. How about just the 5 oldest bugs :) Okay, I have one vote for pick the eldest. I'll call that Cinderella sort --R -- Robinson Tryon LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald Senior QA Bug Wrangler The Document Foundation qu...@libreoffice.org ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
NEEDINFO Bugs
Hi All, I've done the first round of warnings to NEEDINFO bugs that are stagnant. You may receive a group of emails about this, within the last 2 minutes I've done 140 or so. The link for these bugs can be found here: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=304711emailtype1=substringquery_format=advancedemailqa_contact1=1bug_status=NEEDINFOemail1=qa-admin%40libreoffice.org We will be tracking the progress of these bugs moving forward to see how many are not updated by the reporter so that we know how successful this project is. Also, I will be doing ~50-100 daily until I am caught up to the bugs that have been stagnant for at least 6 months. Thanks all for your patience, apologies it too me so long to get this done. Warm Regards, Joel ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Robert Großkopf píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 19:52 +0100: Hi *, + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52571 + BASE VBA DELETE COLUMN OR TABLE DOESN'T CHANGE THE SURFACE + minimalistic report = hard to understand + 5 months ago asked for more details and no answer + 2 months ago pinged = should get closed Have closed this bug. Don't know if this bug is really confirmed by everybody. Great. + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54730 + LibreOffice Base crashes when Test connection is executed against JDBC connection + problems to reproduce + 4 months in needinfo + info kind of provided but still not reproducible = should get closed as worksforme There seems to be nobody who could reproduce this bug. Nobody of the persons, who answered and tested have used the database the reporter uses. If there is anybody, who could test this bug with the cimbination JDBC/DB2 and this combination works, then the bug could be closed as Worksforme. Thats the problem of many open bugs auf Base, which couldn't be confirmed: You could connect to many databases. Special bugs of external databases would wait a long time as Unconfirmed, because noby uses the same database. Well, crasher can be solved also without reproducing. The backtrace usually shows where the problem is. The user had problems with JDBC connections in general. The crash was probably visible only in the special environment. I am afraid that backtrace was the only solution to track this down effectively. It is wrong, that this bug has status Needinfo, because it has never been confirmed. Well, it was in neededinfo because Jochen asked you for input. It is kind of correct using of the NEEDINFO flag ;-) IMHO, the most correct solution would be ask the user for a backtrace. It might point to the broken code. Also, we might ask for more information about his system, for example JRE and JDBC version. It might trigger a bell and point to another known bug. If he does not provide it than we should close it as WORKSFORME. We shouldn't close Base-bugs which cant be confirmed because of special databases or special systems. I agree that we should not close bugs just because they need special equipment. Well, such bugs should not be in NEEDINFO state. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Florian Reisinger píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 16:36 +0100: 71,43% NO INPUT 28,57% SHOULD BE REVIEWED I think what might be a globally acceptable solution for our problem: + 20%-30% of wrongly closed bugs is relatively high number. It is realistic. I think that it corresponds with the number of reopened bugs from the first two mass closes + few active bug triaggers (Rainer, Alex, ???) are against automatic mass close + most people agree on closing dead bugs So what are the numbers: + 785 bugs is NEEDINFO more than 1 month + 532 bugs in NEEDINFO more than 3 months + 328 bugs in NEEDINFO more than 6 months + 1456 bugs is UNCONFIRMED and needs triage + 270 bugs is REOPENED and might need triage Let's be pessimistic and say that only 2/3 of the NEEDINFO bugs are dead and the rest will get reopened = the mass close will get rid of: + 523 bugs if we close after 1 month + 354 bugs if we close after 3 months + 218 bugs if we close after 6 months 3 months is a good compromise that should be acceptable for most people. If we decide to use this limit, then would get: + 354 automatically closed bugs (2/3 of 532) + 447 REOPENED bugs (270 + 1/3 of 532) + 1456 UNCONFIRMED bugs = + 354 closed bugs + 1903 bugs needing triage (1456+447) So, the mass change would solve about 15% of the bugs. On the other hand, it might demotivate some active triagers and make some users angry. Resume: === I see two solutions. 1. Majority of people agrees that 15% is a nice win and we will do the mass change. 2. We will close the dead bugs manually: + add query for stalling NEEDINFO bugs and ask for triage + encourage triagers to close dead bugs older than X months + propose a good closing text on the wiki The risk is that triagers would feed bad to close dead bugs. The advantage of the mass close is that it is kind of annonymous. After all, I slightly prefer the second solution. It should not be much work to close dead bugs, especially in compare with the work that has already been invested into these bugs. It is more clean and should be better acceptable for all involved, especially from the long term point of view. What do you think? Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Petr, all, Thanks for your long mail... Am 08.02.2013 um 16:56 schrieb Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz: Florian Reisinger píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 16:36 +0100: 71,43% NO INPUT 28,57% SHOULD BE REVIEWED I think what might be a globally acceptable solution for our problem: + 20%-30% of wrongly closed bugs is relatively high number. It is realistic. I think that it corresponds with the number of reopened bugs from the first two mass closes I think you agree, that you shouldn't take the percentage too serious,,, 7 samples are far to less for a meaningful statistic... + If someone isn't interested for 180 days not every bug will be reopened AND because of the Dead bugs only a small number of the no input bugs (IMHO) are going to get reopened... + few active bug triaggers (Rainer, Alex, ???) are against automatic mass close + most people agree on closing dead bugs So what are the numbers: + 785 bugs is NEEDINFO more than 1 month + 532 bugs in NEEDINFO more than 3 months + 328 bugs in NEEDINFO more than 6 months + 1456 bugs is UNCONFIRMED and needs triage + 270 bugs is REOPENED and might need triage Let's be pessimistic and say that only 2/3 of the NEEDINFO bugs are dead and the rest will get reopened = the mass close will get rid of: Let's be a little bit less pessimistic: Some simply forgot about the submitted bug... + 523 bugs if we close after 1 month + 354 bugs if we close after 3 months + 218 bugs if we close after 6 months 3 months is a good compromise that should be acceptable for most people. If we decide to use this limit, then would get: + 354 automatically closed bugs (2/3 of 532) + 447 REOPENED bugs (270 + 1/3 of 532) + 1456 UNCONFIRMED bugs = + 354 closed bugs + 1903 bugs needing triage (1456+447) So, the mass change would solve about 15% of the bugs. On the other hand, it might demotivate some active triagers and make some users angry. Resume: === I see two solutions. 1. Majority of people agrees that 15% is a nice win and we will do the mass change. Nice win and IMHO the win will be higher... 2. We will close the dead bugs manually: + add query for stalling NEEDINFO bugs and ask for triage + encourage triagers to close dead bugs older than X months + propose a good closing text on the wiki We (QA) have one problem : Number of active people ( in relation to the number of bugs..,) For triaging the NEEDINFO bugs we IMHO need 1/3 - 1/2 more staff. The risk is that triagers would feed bad to close dead bugs. The advantage of the mass close is that it is kind of annonymous. Personally I don't think so... After all, I slightly prefer the second solution. It should not be much work to close dead bugs, especially in compare with the work that has already been invested into these bugs. It is more clean and should be better acceptable for all involved, especially from the long term point of view. What do you think? I pointed out my opinion above... Best Regards, Petr Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Alex Thurgood píše v St 06. 02. 2013 v 14:09 +0100: Le 06/02/2013 13:19, Michael Stahl a écrit : how many of your bugs are in NEEDINFO state? if the problem is really developer attention (and i don't doubt that this is the case for many bugs) then they should not be in NEEDINFO state and you won't get any mails. I was commenting more from the perspective of someone who went through the rigmarole of having many of his bug reports reclassified and the demoralising effect that can have on a contributor. Personally, I have learned to live with it, but that doesn't mean that I think it is a good idea generally. As for my own reports, I understand that developers may not have the time or resources to commit to looking at any given report, but as you say, these are probably mostly not in the NEEDINFO status anyway. Some of the reports which I have filed, confirmed or added myself to, and which are currently in NEEDINFO status (mostly database or printing issues) are due mainly to being unable to test the alleged buggy behaviour on Mac OSX, either because I don't have the corresponding equipment to test with (e.g Brother printers) or OSX's system security privileges preventing me from setting up db servers to test on, whereas these used to work in previous versions of OSX. These particular problems are independent of LO, but that does not mean that the LO bugs per se are invalid (since, at the time the report was filed, the problem did occur). I am confused. Are these bugs in NEEDINFO just because nobody found time to confirm them? If this is true, they should be in the state UNCONFIRMED. The bugs should be in the state NEEDINFO only when they can't be reproduced because an information is missing. Could you please give an example of such bugs? Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Le 07/02/2013 13:32, Petr Mladek a écrit : Hi Petr, I am confused. Are these bugs in NEEDINFO just because nobody found time to confirm them? If this is true, they should be in the state UNCONFIRMED. The bugs should be in the state NEEDINFO only when they can't be reproduced because an information is missing. Could you please give an example of such bugs? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?order=Importanceemailcc1=1emailreporter1=1emaillongdesc1=1emailtype1=substringquery_format=advancedemailassigned_to1=1emailqa_contact1=1bug_status=NEEDINFOemail1=iplaw67product=LibreOffice Note that these aren't necessarily my own bug reports, but also include ones on which I have (and others, including Rainer, or even Joel, for some of them) either commented or added myself to on CC. Alex ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Alex Thurgood píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 14:17 +0100: Le 07/02/2013 13:32, Petr Mladek a écrit : Hi Petr, I am confused. Are these bugs in NEEDINFO just because nobody found time to confirm them? If this is true, they should be in the state UNCONFIRMED. The bugs should be in the state NEEDINFO only when they can't be reproduced because an information is missing. Could you please give an example of such bugs? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?order=Importanceemailcc1=1emailreporter1=1emaillongdesc1=1emailtype1=substringquery_format=advancedemailassigned_to1=1emailqa_contact1=1bug_status=NEEDINFOemail1=iplaw67product=LibreOffice Hmm, I took random 10 bugs from the above list. I see that Alex did a lot of great work. Anyway, here is what I see: + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52170: + An extremely slow search/browse table in embedded HSQLDB + in NEEDINFO for a long time but there was a lot of activity later + IMHO, it should not be in NEEDINFO + in each case, we should stay opened + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52388: + EDITING - postgresql data not writable, updatable, modifiable using built-in connector + Lionel (developer) is not able to move forward without more info + 2 month in needinfo and no reaction + = should get closed + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53862: + EDITING: Inserted graphics are lost + hard to reproduce without test document + potential duplicate of other bugs + 2.5 months in NEEDINFO and no reaction + = should get closed; there are probably better duplicates; we do not have resources to create a working test document; if it is a common bug, it will be reported later and maybe with a test document + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51390: + Users with network based accounts on Mac OS X 10.6 + bug triages is not able to reproduce because of missing HW and complicated setup + asked for backtrace 3 months ago and no response + I would close this; it is trivial to produce back trace and it should be enough to fix the problem + NOTE: there is missing a link to the wiki with the hint how to create the back trace; Anyway, the user could have asked + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55753 + CRASH - new template manager dialog from StartCenter + information provided + = wrong state and should stay opened + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46040 + UI: Docking the task window crashes LibreOffice 3.5 Impress + can't be reproduced + 1 year agi asked for more info + 1 month ago pinged and no answer + = should get closed + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52571 + BASE VBA DELETE COLUMN OR TABLE DOESN'T CHANGE THE SURFACE + minimalistic report = hard to understand + 5 months ago asked for more details and no answer + 2 months ago pinged = should get closed + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55085 + Landscape printing prints as portrait with content turned at 90 degree + too vague report + 4 months in needinfo and no reaction + = should get closed + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54730 + LibreOffice Base crashes when Test connection is executed against JDBC connection + problems to reproduce + 4 months in needinfo + info kind of provided but still not reproducible = should get closed as worksforme + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36970 + (orcmid) Help on Managing Digital Signatures is incorrect + not producible + 4 month in needinfo and no answer = should get closed So, 8 of 10 bugs should get closed. The remaining 2 bugs are in wrong state. I am not sure if this sample is enough but I am even more convinced that + it makes sense to close such bugs because they are mostly dead + ping does not make any sense; if users do not provide the info when asked they do not react on ping as well Note that even if we close few bugs by mistake, it is not that bad. It makes traffic there and encourages people to move forward. I still do not understand that many fears and bad feeling about this action. Do you have other opinion, feeling, or experience, please? Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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:
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi, I do something similar with my kill list [1] Am 07.02.2013 15:31, schrieb Petr Mladek: Alex Thurgood píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 14:17 +0100: Le 07/02/2013 13:32, Petr Mladek a écrit : [...] Do you have other opinion, feeling, or experience, please? Best Regards, Petr I took 7 bugs out of the 256 given ( + used for pro closing - used for not closing * for neutral) #1 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50749 + Short description + NOT reproduced by Rainer + No activity since 2012-07-28 21:32:17 CEST #2 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41488 * Reported for 3.3.3 * Checked with 3.4.4 + Last reporter input: 2012-02-05 01:15:26 CET + Last input: 2012-06-26 08:14:48 CEST #3 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42327 - Critical bug + As far as I understood not reproduced + No input after: 2012-05-02 04:10:05 CEST #4 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49544 - Needs for investigation (Sorry, don't have the time for it today - IMHO false state... +- (Couldn't decide) No activity since 2012-07-18 22:03:23 CEST #5 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45980 --WHY THE HELL IS THIS BUG IN NEEDINFO STATE - Investigation needed -Seems, that noone touched it * Last (and first) activity: 2012-02-13 02:07:09 CET #6 * Reported with 3.4.5 and tested with 3.5.4 too + Request for info -- NO answer + Last (and only) activity (reporter): 2012-03-13 07:19:32 CET + Last activity (QA): 2012-08-09 14:10:03 CEST #7 * Bugreport for 3.5.1 + No further input by user + Asked for retesting + Last activity: 2012-06-12 04:22:51 CEST Finally: Should be... # CLOSED 5 ( 1,2,3,6,7 ) OPEN2 (4,5) 71,43% NO INPUT 28,57% SHOULD BE REVIEWED This may mean, that if there is an answer, about 73 bugs should be reviewed and 183 are valid closed. 36 bugs are definitely in the wrong state -- BUT please test this query. No input for 180 days AND NEEDINFO -- Needinfo is the wrong state anyway IMHO ;) My thoughts... [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?f1=days_elapsedo3=notsubstringlist_id=226805v3=strike1columnlist=component%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_status%2Cbug_severity%2Cresolution%2Cshort_desc%2Cchangeddateo1=greaterthanquery_based_on=DELETE%20NEEDINFO%20bugs%20-%20strike%201o2=notequalschfieldto=-180dquery_format=advancedchfield=bug_statuschfieldfrom=2000-01-01f3=status_whiteboardf2=bug_severitychfieldvalue=NEEDINFObug_status=NEEDINFOv1=180v2=enhancementproduct=LibreOfficeknown_name=DELETE%20NEEDINFO%20bugs%20-%20strike%201 -- _Florian Reisinger _ LibreOffice herunterladen! http://de.libreoffice.org/download/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi *, + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52571 + BASE VBA DELETE COLUMN OR TABLE DOESN'T CHANGE THE SURFACE + minimalistic report = hard to understand + 5 months ago asked for more details and no answer + 2 months ago pinged = should get closed Have closed this bug. Don't know if this bug is really confirmed by everybody. + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54730 + LibreOffice Base crashes when Test connection is executed against JDBC connection + problems to reproduce + 4 months in needinfo + info kind of provided but still not reproducible = should get closed as worksforme There seems to be nobody who could reproduce this bug. Nobody of the persons, who answered and tested have used the database the reporter uses. If there is anybody, who could test this bug with the cimbination JDBC/DB2 and this combination works, then the bug could be closed as Worksforme. Thats the problem of many open bugs auf Base, which couldn't be confirmed: You could connect to many databases. Special bugs of external databases would wait a long time as Unconfirmed, because noby uses the same database. It is wrong, that this bug has status Needinfo, because it has never been confirmed. We shouldn't close Base-bugs which cant be confirmed because of special databases or special systems. Robert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Petr, Also you could pay someone to work on a certain bug. There is a growing list of certified developers which are capable of doing such things. These are well spend money because they improve the product and motivate people working on LO. Don't know, if you know, to whom you are writing this. Or could be I don't understand enough English. Dan is the person, who writes the international Base-Guide. I have written the German Base-Handbuch. We both spend a lot of time for helping other people to understand the database included in LO - by writing Guides, by helping in a forum or in mailinglists. We motivate people to work with Base. ... and whe souldn't only spend a lot of time to motivate. Now we should also spend money??? No, I don't need Base in newer versions of LO. I 'm still using LO 3.3.4, because this is the best working version of LO, when I try to work with Base. My own databases I use for work aren't Base-databases. I'm working with PHP/Apche/MySQL. Robert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Alex Thurgood píše v St 06. 02. 2013 v 10:40 +0100: Le 05/02/2013 13:03, Petr Mladek a écrit : All, After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. IMO, the rationale behind closing bugs in this way, i.e. let's do it and if the user/reporter is really motivated he/she is bound to get back sends completely the wrong message to the user community at large: - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail; - that many of these bug reports are fallacious or fanciful. While some of them might well fall into the second category, I fear that many are from people who were incited to use the bug submission assistant after encountering a troublesome or even serious problem in their usage of the product and are then expected to get the community fervour. The reality of this is that if you make a tool easily accessible for reporting bugs, then people simply expect that report to be followed up on by someone else, more knowledgeable. This doesn't mean that their bug report is any less worthy or relevant just because they don't then follow-up. To me, the solution being proposed is yet another high-handed way of improving the stats without due regard to those who made the effort in the first place to submit a report. I understand the point. The question is what is the future of these bugs. Is anyone actively working on them? Is anyone going to work on them? Another solution would be to say that these bugs need triaging. Triagers might schedule these bugs for another review after 1 month in the state NEEDINFO. They might do their best to reproduce the bug and provide the needed information. If they are not able to reproduce it, they might close them as WORKSFORME. The question is if we have resources to do this. AFAIK, triaggers have hard times to sort the good UNCONFIRMED bugs these days. IMHO, this whole discussion is not about statistics but about clean state and resources. We want to have bugzilla in a good state because it makes easier to monitor the state of the product, prioritize, ... Just imagine where we might end after few years. The resources are limited. The question is how to use them optimally and what is better for the product. If triaggers and developers spend more time with poorly reported bugs, it might delay other important bugs and annoy more users in the end. BTW: Users get the product for free. We might expect some contribution from them as well. Anyway, this mostly affect the life of bug triagers. If most triagers are against the mass close, we should not do it. This is why we vote here :-) Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Le 06/02/2013 13:19, Michael Stahl a écrit : how many of your bugs are in NEEDINFO state? if the problem is really developer attention (and i don't doubt that this is the case for many bugs) then they should not be in NEEDINFO state and you won't get any mails. I was commenting more from the perspective of someone who went through the rigmarole of having many of his bug reports reclassified and the demoralising effect that can have on a contributor. Personally, I have learned to live with it, but that doesn't mean that I think it is a good idea generally. As for my own reports, I understand that developers may not have the time or resources to commit to looking at any given report, but as you say, these are probably mostly not in the NEEDINFO status anyway. Some of the reports which I have filed, confirmed or added myself to, and which are currently in NEEDINFO status (mostly database or printing issues) are due mainly to being unable to test the alleged buggy behaviour on Mac OSX, either because I don't have the corresponding equipment to test with (e.g Brother printers) or OSX's system security privileges preventing me from setting up db servers to test on, whereas these used to work in previous versions of OSX. These particular problems are independent of LO, but that does not mean that the LO bugs per se are invalid (since, at the time the report was filed, the problem did occur). Sweeping them away, even with a 3 strikes and you're out policy, will still not make them any less valid. Although I might get disgruntled with this approach, and feel helpless to do anything about it, I can live with it (up to a certain point). I'm not convinced that other, more casual bug reporters, would think the same way. Alex ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Alex, After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. All open bugs in Base today: 225 Bugs, which are Unconfimed: 27 Bugs, which are Needinfo: 26 I don't think that we need automatically way to get these bugs away. Problem of many of these bugs: They couldn't be confirmed by everybody, because there are special configurations with external databases or Mac. What we need: developers, who will work on bugs in Base. There are many bugs New and opened since the first version of LO. Robert ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On 02/06/2013 09:50 AM, Robert Großkopf wrote: Hi Alex, After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. All open bugs in Base today: 225 Bugs, which are Unconfimed: 27 Bugs, which are Needinfo: 26 I don't think that we need automatically way to get these bugs away. Problem of many of these bugs: They couldn't be confirmed by everybody, because there are special configurations with external databases or Mac. What we need: developers, who will work on bugs in Base. There are many bugs New and opened since the first version of LO. Robert I agree with Robert. This also goes to a complaint that I saw on the LibreOffice user list. The person wanted more time spent by the developers on removing the bugs that exist in LO and less time on producing more code that contains more bugs. This is poor planning. From Robert's data, 172 open bugs have not had a developer correct . These are the ones that have been confirmed and contained enough data for a developer to begin work. That is 76% of the bugs reported for Base. A bug reporting system is only as good as the resources allocated to fixing the bugs. Otherwise, people send in bug reports that may or may not even have a developer look at them. Meanwhile, another milestone is reached as a newer version comes out containing some of these bugs. Where is the quality assurance in that? The symptom we have is many bug reports that need additional information. But what is causing this? Could it be that there are too many versions being produced at the same time? (3.6.5 and 4.0.0) Personally, I think LO (perhaps the BOD) needs to look at what is being done and what effects it is having on the product they are making available for downloading. --Dan ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. The last one was very different from what we're doing now. These bugs are currently in NEEDINFO status, the last mass closings have been on bugs that were UNCONFIRMED. We have decided that closing UNCONFIRMED bugs without anyone ever looking at them is not okay, but if we have looked at it and given our volunteer time and have determined the bug needs more information, if the user fails to provide that information, we should assume the bug is abandoned. Currently our backlog of UNCONFIRMED bugs is hovering around 1,400, we will not waste our time looking at NEEDINFO bugs again - we simply don't have the time to waste. IMO, the rationale behind closing bugs in this way, i.e. let's do it and if the user/reporter is really motivated he/she is bound to get back sends completely the wrong message to the user community at large: This isn't the rationale at all. This is a friendly reminder that they reported a bug and abandoned it and announcing our new policy which is to maintain a clean and accurate bug tracker. We could really say you abandoned this bug and it'll never be looked at unless you take the time to update it but that would be much less polite, this is just a friendly this bug has gone MONTHS without any activity after a QA member took the time to look at your issue, if no activity occurs in the next month, the bug will be assumed to be fixed and/or abandoned -- the exact wording will be agreed upon later. - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail; No, it assumes that we all have a responsibility when using open source (users and contributors) and that we can't ask volunteers to waste time on poorly submitted bugs that have been abandoned by their reporters. - that many of these bug reports are fallacious or fanciful. While some of them might well fall into the second category, I fear that many are from people who were incited to use the bug submission assistant after encountering a troublesome or even serious problem in their usage of the product and are then expected to get the community fervour. The reality of this is that if you make a tool easily accessible for reporting bugs, then people simply expect that report to be followed up on by someone else, more knowledgeable. This doesn't mean that their bug report is any less worthy or relevant just because they don't then follow-up. Again, I agree with Petr, this product is free, if you're going to use it and expect your issues to be tackled, we can reasonably expect a user to at least update their own bugs. Ideally they would get community fervour and start contributing outside of their own bug reports, but...this is unrealistic. To me, the solution being proposed is yet another high-handed way of improving the stats without due regard to those who made the effort in the first place to submit a report. This has nothing to do with stats, and I love stats. It's a matter of keeping an accurate bug tracking system. INVALID will show us how many bugs are essentially abandoned by their reporter which is not our fault. What Petr said was exactly my feeling, it's a matter of, what's the point of leaving these bugs in NEEDINFO status when our contributors have already looked at the bug and determined more is needed before we proceed AT ALL. NEEDINFO status should mean something and that something should be A QA member has looked at this bug within the last 30-60 days and determined it needs more information before proceeding -- NOT this bug was looked at two years ago and determined that it needs more information but has since been abandoned and will sit in this status forever These all seem like reasonable expectations of the user/reporter as well as our contributors. Just to repeat, we *will not* close a bug without a QA member first looking at the bug, this means a contributor has already spent time on it, expecting more of our contributors is not right -- ie. them guessing at what a reporter is trying to report and spending a ton of time trying to reproduce from a terrible list of steps or a lack of an attachment which actually shows the issue. Best Regards, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi, I am going to vote on all open questions. It might speed up the voting process :-) Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 09:11 -0800: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the bugs. The open questions are: 1. how old bugs should get proceed: - from 30days to 6 months - it is unclear what is preferred by most people 30 days should be enough. If nobody answered withing this time frame, there is only small chance that she would answer later without pinging. 2. whether to send any warning before - 1 or none - 1 is more polite but it creates traffic - it unclear how many people are for what solution None. IMHO, it is enough and it reduces the traffic. 3. if we do the warning, it unclear how long to wait with closing the bug after the warning: - 7 days, 30 days, or even longer? 30 days sounds fine here as well. Are we agreed that the closing of bugs should be done (aside from the details of how)? +1 Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Rainer Bielefeld píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 19:23 +0100: Hi all, I had the plan to write down some thoughts concerning your plans to do an other mass close, but I wasn't in the mood to do that. Due to my experience with bug wrangling in general and similar actions we did in LibO Bugzilla, for my personal work I only expect (smaller) complications, and I am very very doubtful that we will get any benefit at all of such an action. So I don not want to waste my spare time for an action what seems to be completely useless ore even damaging to me. You already did lots of discussion concerning details of proceeding, but I can't see any reasoning for what a mass close might be useful. We did similar mass close in the past. I think that you did some statistics later. Do you remember how many of the closed bugs were reopened? And how many of these bugs were later fixed? I will not invest any time for this action until I hear at least 1 passably conclusive argument concerning fair and checkable benefit the project and / or my (or other power bugwranglers') work will receive by such a mass close. IMHO, the reason is to get rid of dead bugs. I mean bugs that can't be solved without the extra information. Most of these bugs would stay like this forever. They even cause some waste of time when people read them again and again during the bug triage process but nobody is able to move them forward. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
30 days should be enough. If nobody answered withing this time frame, there is only small chance that she would answer later without pinging. +1 None. IMHO, it is enough and it reduces the traffic. +1, I think the developers will appreciate this as well 30 days sounds fine here as well. +1 Are we agreed that the closing of bugs should be done (aside from the details of how)? +1 I agree with all of that. Is that acceptable for everyone? Best Regards, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
This is in response to Rainer's hesitation. I think there are three solid reasons why this should be done and how it would help, one is for QA side, one is for the project as a whole and one is for general accuracy of FDO: 1) For QA side, if we make this a standard policy then when we push something to NEEDINFO we can immediately say, this bug will remain in NEEDINFO state for 30 days, after which it will be closed as INVALID. This could promote users actually providing information, if they know that their bug will go to INVALID after 30 days maybe they'll be a bit more rush on their side and we won't continue to accumulate NEEDINFO bugs. 2) For the project as a whole, a lot of these bugs in NEEDINFO could in fact be bugs but developers aren't looking at them because of something as simple as a missing attachment. Doing this purge might encourage people who have simply forgotten about their bugs to take the additional steps to make it so QA can easily confirm their bugs. Without this it is more than likely that the bugs have zero chance of ever being looked at again. It would be ashame to have known bugs on FDO but no one will ever look at them, doing anything that encourages the input from the reporter is a good thing -- I think that this does exactly that. 3) General accuracy of FDO. NEEDINFO means maybe it's a bug, maybe it's not, who knows -- I think it's important for FDO to be accurate. INVALID bugs actually means this bug is not a valid bug. I think NEEDINFO should be a temporary status, not a status we anticipate bugs sitting in forever. Best Regards, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800: Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss of thoughts that didn't pan out ;) To be honest, I am a bit confused by the different opinions. My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the bugs. The open questions are: 1. how old bugs should get proceed: - from 30days to 6 months - it is unclear what is preferred by most people 2. whether to send any warning before - 1 or none - 1 is more polite but it creates traffic - it unclear how many people are for what solution 3. if we do the warning, it unclear how long to wait with closing the bug after the warning: - 7 days, 30 days, or even longer? - only Rainer supports 7 days; others prefer longer time but I am not sure if they did not talk about the time before sending the 1st warning Of course, we also need to decide about the messages but we first need to decide about the process itself. A good solution might be voting on this mailing list. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800: Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss of thoughts that didn't pan out ;) To be honest, I am a bit confused by the different opinions. My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the bugs. The open questions are: 1. how old bugs should get proceed: - from 30days to 6 months - it is unclear what is preferred by most people 2. whether to send any warning before - 1 or none - 1 is more polite but it creates traffic - it unclear how many people are for what solution 3. if we do the warning, it unclear how long to wait with closing the bug after the warning: - 7 days, 30 days, or even longer? - only Rainer supports 7 days; others prefer longer time but I am not sure if they did not talk about the time before sending the 1st warning Of course, we also need to decide about the messages but we first need to decide about the process itself. A good solution might be voting on this mailing list. +1, I say let's vote. And thanks for the succinct summary. Are we agreed that the closing of bugs should be done (aside from the details of how)? Let's start with that, if general agreement is yes, we'll move forward with specific details (I think we should vote per item to allow discussion if it's needed). If we agree that closing bugs need done, I can at least present the idea during the ESC call to give developers a chance to respond. I know there are some concerns about the mass emails that will happen upon closing them. Best Regards, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi all, I had the plan to write down some thoughts concerning your plans to do an other mass close, but I wasn't in the mood to do that. Due to my experience with bug wrangling in general and similar actions we did in LibO Bugzilla, for my personal work I only expect (smaller) complications, and I am very very doubtful that we will get any benefit at all of such an action. So I don not want to waste my spare time for an action what seems to be completely useless ore even damaging to me. You already did lots of discussion concerning details of proceeding, but I can't see any reasoning for what a mass close might be useful. I will not invest any time for this action until I hear at least 1 passably conclusive argument concerning fair and checkable benefit the project and / or my (or other power bugwranglers') work will receive by such a mass close. This https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/NeedinfoClosure#Why_we_aredoing this? is not an argument. Best regards Rainer ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi, so I seem to state out my opinion first... Am 04.02.2013 um 18:11 schrieb Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800: Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss of thoughts that didn't pan out ;) To be honest, I am a bit confused by the different opinions. My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the bugs. The open questions are: 1. how old bugs should get proceed: - from 30days to 6 months - it is unclear what is preferred by most people IMHO 6 months -- Less false positives 2. whether to send any warning before - 1 or none - 1 is more polite but it creates traffic - it unclear how many people are for what solution 1 3. if we do the warning, it unclear how long to wait with closing the bug after the warning: - 7 days, 30 days, or even longer? - only Rainer supports 7 days; others prefer longer time but I am not sure if they did not talk about the time before sending the 1st warning They talked about the time from warning - closure IMHO 30 days are okay. If we set the time too short, we might face problems... Of course, we also need to decide about the messages but we first need to decide about the process itself. A good solution might be voting on this mailing list. +1, I say let's vote. And thanks for the succinct summary. Are we agreed that the closing of bugs should be done (aside from the details of how)? IMHO yes Let's start with that, if general agreement is yes, we'll move forward with specific details (I think we should vote per item to allow discussion if it's needed). +1 If we agree that closing bugs need done, I can at least present the idea during the ESC call to give developers a chance to respond. I know there are some concerns about the mass emails that will happen upon closing them. Best Regards, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 07:09 +0100, Florian Reisinger wrote: Am 28.01.2013 14:13, schrieb Petr Mladek: Strike 2 After 7 Days: Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1: - Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care - NOT changed: Mass close via Bugzilla with polite message Sorry ..., but feel free to reopen if ... What do think? I like this solution. It is polite and creates only one change in bugzilla. [...] Okay do you mean the button Send mail to bug Assignees? In my query some of the following would get mail: Me, A. Timar, Joel... so QA staff + dev So, what should we do? I was able to display the e-mail of the reporter, but you won't get me to send 200 mails A button Send mail to the reporter and everyone who is interested in this bug would be nice ;) [Sorry for sarcasm] Good point! This actually shows how annoying are the mass changes in bugzilla when it is done for hundreds of bugs. I think that we must do at least one change in bugzilla (close the bug). What about doing only this action? Do we really need warnings before closing? As Rainer writes in the other mail. The user usually provide the answer within 3 working days or newer. What is wrong when we close the bug with a polite message, explaining why we are not able to solve the bugs, and encouraging the user to provide the information and reopen the bug? I know this is what we did in the first mass close and some bug triagers complained. But I think that it was not well explained on the mailing list before the change was done. Anyone from the complainers should read this thread, complain now and suggest better solution :-) Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 07:51 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Petr Mladek schrieb: IMHO, the most important is to give user chance to answer before the first warning (30 days or so). Hi Petr, I don't think so. My experience is that the reporter normally will answer within 3 days (mostly: latest next day) or never. We should not base our decisions on 1 user in the world with a Sabbatical somewhere in the Australian outback hindered to answer ;-) All these theses that we should give a reporter weeks of time never have been underpinned by data, and object to my experience. Some people suggested 6 months. You suggests one week. I do not persist on 30 days but I think that it is a good compromise. For example, imagine someone who reports a bug before leaving on vacation, business trip, or into hospital. In addition, I think that it would be rude to push users to provide feedback within 7 days when the triage and fixing the bugs might take weeks and months :-) Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Petr Mladek wrote Some people suggested 6 months. You suggests one week. I do not persist on 30 days but I think that it is a good compromise. For example, imagine someone who reports a bug before leaving on vacation, business trip, or into hospital. In addition, I think that it would be rude to push users to provide feedback within 7 days when the triage and fixing the bugs might take weeks and months :-) +1 I think that is extremely rude. It reminds me of my Graduation diploma which was not ready for 3 years and then I received a postcard saying I had 10 days to pick it up... I believe that 1 month interval between the 3 strikes is the most reasonable. It doesn't leave untouched items for more than 3 months and it should overcome the vacation, business trip, or into hospital period. Just my 2 cents ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Stagnant-NEEDINFO-bugs-tp4032113p4032870.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 13:20 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Pedro schrieb: I think that is extremely rude. It reminds me of my Graduation diploma which was not ready for 3 years and then I received a postcard saying I had 10 days to pick it up... Hi, no, we will not leave open a pending action item for 1 month. During that time several of the related bugs might have changed status because other have started work on it ,... . 1 Weekbetween annoncement and final action is ok, and we will explain the re asons why we closed the bug in that First mail without Bugzilla noise (I will create a suggestion basing on the available suggestions, soon) so that nobody can fell frustrated. Well, I am still not persuaded that we want 2 or more strike solution. Even when you send mails outside bugzilla, it will create noise :-) As Florian pointed out, we do not know who is supposed to provide the information. In some cases, it is not the reporter but another person that is in CC. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 13:43 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: I) Such an action should avoid collateral damages as effective as possible. A promising approach might be to find an effective query with good accuracy for hopeless Bug reports where we can expect that there will be no useful reaction from reporter, AND where we can be sure that the NEEDINFO is appropriate and not only caused by laziness of reviewer At least I can say for me that sometimes I am interested and tough and I find a real bug even with a very rare report. And sometimes I try to get a better bug description because I want to save some work. I will not forget these Bugs, they are in my hold-file, but if I saw a low priority, it might take a year or so until I get back to the bug. And this might cause unnecessary work for other reviewers, may be hundreds invest half a minute, see that someone is involved, leave again, and so we loose some hors every year in such 1 bug. This is one thing that I am afraid of as well. We could close bugs that are somehow solvable but nobody has found time to do more investigation. The question is how many bugs belong to this category. Someone pointed out that bugs that have been in NEEDINFO longer time are often dead ends. I think that we newer will be perfect. If a bug is staying around for a long time, it is not super cricical. If we close valid bug and nobody bother to reopen it, it is not supercritical as well. We have more bugs that we are able to fix, so we could use this as a natural filtering of the less important and thus very low priority bugs. I am sure that if a bug is important and we close it by mistake, someone will reopen it. This activity will bring more attention to it and move it forward. It is not ideal but it has positive effects. What do you think? Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 15:06 -0800, Joel Madero wrote: On 01/26/2013 02:48 PM, Jack Leigh wrote: c) a reminder + automated closing of bug after some period of time +1 Something like automated closing after 3 months in NEEDINFO Response: From developer side, they'll see a MASSIVE influx of emails, pointed out by a core developer. This would need approval from ESC This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal level of mails if we do this regularly. If people are in CC, they need to expect some comments, either from the user, or triager, or an automat. Possible option: New keyword AUTOMATED, devs can filter these out individually and easily delete In each case, we need to write some explanation in the comment. One problem here is how to deal with bugs in NEEDEDINFO state where the user provided some information but she forgot to change the status flag. Are these situations detected by bug triagers in time? Will these bugs be closed automatically as well? Anyway, I think that it is best to get the information out of the user when the bug is fresh and when the user is somehow motivated. So, I would prefer to keep some dynamics and close the bugs after one month in NEEDINFO state. I would use a comment like: This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than 30 days. It cannot be solved in this state. Feel free to reopen it together with the required information. If we do the close automatically and could not detect wrong state. We could add one more paragraph, with something like: This change has been done automatically. If you have already provided the information and just forgot to change the NEEDINFO state, feel free to simply reopen the bug. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Petr Mladek schrieb: This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal level of mails if we do this regularly. Hi, That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same. Only the number of mails per cleanup will be smaller. BTW, I dislike the noise the discussed 3 strikes solution will cause. I'm thinking about a different solution: Strike 1: Query will find NEEDINFO bugs untouched for a long time and fulfilling some additional hopeless criteria. Reporter's of these bugs will get polite mail with request to contribute additional info that we will have to close the bug without additional info. This mailing only send mails to reporters, will not change any info in the Bugs, so that data as Days since last change and similar will be available for other queries. List of related bugs will be published on QA list That's not a big technical challenge, I think I can create required tools (what can be used fur further actions in future easily) within 1 hour. Strike 2 After 7 Days: Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1: - Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care - NOT changed: Mass close via Bugzilla with polite message Sorry ..., but feel free to reopen if ... What do think? BTW, I would not do that too often. Sometimes it's simply not easy for reporter to contribute desired info, for example because bug is not simple to reproduce. May be such bugs can be marked by entry of a QA Mentor in QA contact or similar. CU Rainer ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:05 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Petr Mladek schrieb: This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal level of mails if we do this regularly. Hi, That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same. Only the number of mails per cleanup will be smaller. IMHO, there is a difference when you get 100 mails now because we want to clean up the current mess or when you get 5 mails per week when we do this regularly. BTW, I dislike the noise the discussed 3 strikes solution will cause. I'm thinking about a different solution: I am against 3 strike solution as well :-) My opinion is that it would cause to big traffic and do not help much. If people does not react for the first warning, there is only small chance that they would react on the second or third one. Strike 1: Query will find NEEDINFO bugs untouched for a long time and fulfilling some additional hopeless criteria. Reporter's of these bugs will get polite mail with request to contribute additional info that we will have to close the bug without additional info. This mailing only send mails to reporters, will not change any info in the Bugs, so that data as Days since last change and similar will be available for other queries. List of related bugs will be published on QA list That's not a big technical challenge, I think I can create required tools (what can be used fur further actions in future easily) within 1 hour. Strike 2 After 7 Days: Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1: - Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care - NOT changed: Mass close via Bugzilla with polite message Sorry ..., but feel free to reopen if ... What do think? I like this solution. It is polite and creates only one change in bugzilla. BTW, I would not do that too often. Sometimes it's simply not easy for reporter to contribute desired info, for example because bug is not simple to reproduce. May be such bugs can be marked by entry of a QA Mentor in QA contact or similar. I would do this regularly to keep bugzilla clean and avoid masschanges in hunderts of bugs. There are different reporters, so we will not touch the same reporter in each round. IMHO, the most important is to give user chance to answer before the first warning (30 days or so). Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Le 2013-01-28 08:13, Petr Mladek a écrit : On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:05 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Petr Mladek schrieb: This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal level of mails if we do this regularly. Hi, That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same. Only the number of mails per cleanup will be smaller. IMHO, there is a difference when you get 100 mails now because we want to clean up the current mess or when you get 5 mails per week when we do this regularly. BTW, I dislike the noise the discussed 3 strikes solution will cause. I'm thinking about a different solution: I am against 3 strike solution as well :-) My opinion is that it would cause to big traffic and do not help much. If people does not react for the first warning, there is only small chance that they would react on the second or third one. Strike 1: Query will find NEEDINFO bugs untouched for a long time and fulfilling some additional hopeless criteria. Reporter's of these bugs will get polite mail with request to contribute additional info that we will have to close the bug without additional info. This mailing only send mails to reporters, will not change any info in the Bugs, so that data as Days since last change and similar will be available for other queries. List of related bugs will be published on QA list That's not a big technical challenge, I think I can create required tools (what can be used fur further actions in future easily) within 1 hour. Strike 2 After 7 Days: Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1: - Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care - NOT changed: Mass close via Bugzilla with polite message Sorry ..., but feel free to reopen if ... What do think? I like this solution. It is polite and creates only one change in bugzilla. BTW, I would not do that too often. Sometimes it's simply not easy for reporter to contribute desired info, for example because bug is not simple to reproduce. May be such bugs can be marked by entry of a QA Mentor in QA contact or similar. I would do this regularly to keep bugzilla clean and avoid masschanges in hunderts of bugs. There are different reporters, so we will not touch the same reporter in each round. IMHO, the most important is to give user chance to answer before the first warning (30 days or so). Best Regards, Petr Sure, then no problem with this, but, let's not forget that some of our users are reporting in EN and that this may not be their 1st language. If it needs more info, we should also try as well to look at it enough to try at first to fill in the blanks ourselves. The bug report may be critical enough to look at. I would also be concerned that whoever is triaging may themselves have trouble understanding the report and just dismiss it as needinfo and then send it back to the user. Many users would then see it more as a sign of apathy on our part thinking I submitted the bug and they are just not interested in fixing the problem I told them about ... Add to this that our users all have lives, jobs etc. and that the bug reporting takes time to submit on their part and that for most it is to help us with having LibreOffice work the right way. So, we should not send users messages in any way that may sound like their bug is useless; the message should be really appreciative of their time that they have given us in reporting the bug and that we would really like to fix it but it needs just a little more information for us to understand the problem. We need to keep them engaged in the bug reporting process. Cheers, Marc -- Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com http://www.parEntreprise.com parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF) parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Joel, all jmadero wrote d) a 3 strikes type system - send one reminder, a month later send a second with a warning the bug will be closed, then close the bug +1 but this sounds like a lot of human work... How can you make sure that a reply is noticed (e.g. after first reminder) so that someone from QA reviews it before the second message is sent? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Stagnant-NEEDINFO-bugs-tp4032113p4032601.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Joel, If you are asking our opinion on these ... Le 2013-01-26 17:22, Joel Madero a écrit : Hi All, During our last QA call we came up with a plan for NEEDINFO bugs that have been stagnant for 6+ months. I've decided to remove this from the minutes because there are some concerns about the agreement that was made. It was requested that we have a discussion through a thread about what we should do about these bugs. Let's try to keep this thread moving and organized so we can make a decision once and for all. Goal should be to minimize flare ups from users while keeping in mind that our long term QA goal is to get FDO organized, accurate and under control. With that, I'll let the thread move forward :-D Options: (feel free to add) a) Leave them alone, accept that most will just sit in NEEDINFO forever b) Automate a reminder for these bugs and leave it at that, if it doesn't lead to anything, so be it, leave the bugs alone c) a reminder + automated closing of bug after some period of time d) a 3 strikes type system - send one reminder, a month later send a second with a warning the bug will be closed, then close the bug These are the options that come to mind. Best Regards, Joel P.S. Florian - please hold off on writing something about our previous agreement until we reach some consensus here. +1 for d) BUT make it a real 3 strikes. one reminder, a month later send another reminder, a month later send the last reminder with a warning that the bug will be closed in one month. The 3-strikes concept is understandable to most people and I believe the submitter would be more understanding if the bug were closed. It also gives more than an abundant amount of time to fill out the missing details of the bug -- from start to end would take 4 months. This would hopefully quiet the noise from disgruntled submitters and allow QA people enough time to get to them if they find some of them important enough for a closer look. Hopefully most of these would be taken care in shorter amount of time. Cheers, Marc -- Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com http://www.parEntreprise.com parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF) parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
c) a reminder + automated closing of bug after some period of time +1 Something like automated closing after 3 months in NEEDINFO ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On 01/26/2013 02:48 PM, Jack Leigh wrote: c) a reminder + automated closing of bug after some period of time +1 Something like automated closing after 3 months in NEEDINFO Response: From developer side, they'll see a MASSIVE influx of emails, pointed out by a core developer. This would need approval from ESC Possible option: New keyword AUTOMATED, devs can filter these out individually and easily delete Best Regards, Joel ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] TOO many NEEDINFO bugs open for +6 months
Hi! After the Needinfo closure (Okay some time after that...) At the beginning there were 14 bugs 2012-08-28 The last time it was actualized (2012-09-04 ) there are ~40 bugs You can find the report (Sorry for that) New Charts -- All - Bugs in NEEDINFO status Yours Florian ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
QA Mission Statement (was: Re: Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs)
Hi, On 20. Aug 2012 00:56, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: [...] The first goal of the QA team is [...] nice statement :-) I had the impulse to put it in a prominent place on the QA Homepage[1]. Feel free to complete it or improve wording. Nino [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi everyone! __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad Am 20.08.2012 um 13:45 schrieb Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com: Hi Alex, On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 22:14 +0200, Alex Thurgood wrote: My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to sweepingly set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA. I agree that the situation was -really- non-ideal here; though I understand the technical reasons for it. My expectation is that there will be no more sweeping setting of bugs to the NEEDINFO state and closing of them like this. Though of course, trawling a (now much smaller) set of NEEDINFO bugs to find those that have not been responded to for some long time makes some sense - hopefully if that set is small enough it can be done manually (?). hmm, does that really make sense? I am working through, lets say, 20 LT NEEDINFO bugs. Let's say 10% answer (more than this time...): 2 bugs are saved... AND I wasted my time... Current scenario was: 899 bugs were at the status. (The following argument is also valid for less number of bugs). ~9% responded ~72 bugs. I could check 827 other bugs, like UNCONFIRMED bugs, when I walked through manually. [...] Given our unusual use of the 'version' field, I have no idea how we can efficiently detect such bugs; but perhaps there is a plan ? ;-) I think I have one... We could use the status pleasetest. Also it would be politer to set the status to PLEASETEST and add something like cnb0812 to the whiteboard... Anyhow - I'm sorry it caused so much grief; thanks for sharing that - I assume the experience will lead to deeper thought discussion in the future :-) We never stop learning ;) ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Florian Reisinger píše v Po 20. 08. 2012 v 14:03 +0300: hmm, does that really make sense? I am working through, lets say, 20 LT NEEDINFO bugs. Let's say 10% answer (more than this time...): 2 bugs are saved... AND I wasted my time... It was not waste of time, definitely. You tried to prepare the bug for developers, did not have enough information, asked the reporter and nobody responded 6 months = we could not fix it magically = we wanted to clearly say that we were not able fix it. This was the last possibility to move the user from lethargy. It would be even worse if we did nothing. = you saved developers a lot of time. They did not have to deal with this bug and fixed some other things instead. We really appreciate it. Best Regards, Petr ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi! About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by bugzilla): In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) * *UNCONFIRMED1https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=UNCONFIRMED NEW51https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=NEW REOPENED37https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=REOPENED RESOLVED800https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=RESOLVED CLOSED1https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=CLOSED
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Flo, all, On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 07:53:35PM +0300, Florian Reisinger wrote: In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) While the statistic alone do not really prove this to be good move, but there was a consensus on the qa call(*) and the qa list that this needs to be done to allow the QA team to keep moving and not getting bogged down in thousends of incomplete or controversal bug reports. Now, of course, such a bulk move will always hit some false positives. If that is the case for one of the bugs you reported (that is: the bug is welldocumented, complete and noncontroversial) please check: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage if the bug indeed contains all the information needed and thus send it back to REOPENED. Thanks! Best, Bjoern (*) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/minutes-of-the-LibreOffice-QA-Call-2012-06-29-1400UTC-td3992888.html ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi! About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by bugzilla): In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) * *UNCONFIRMED1https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=UNCONFIRMED NEW51https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=NEW REOPENED37https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=REOPENED RESOLVED800https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=RESOLVED CLOSED1https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=CLOSED
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Florian, is my conclusion right? One week ago there are 899 bugreports with status NEEDINFO and today there are only 9 bugreports with status NEEDINFO? Regards Jochen Am 19.08.2012 18:53, schrieb Florian Reisinger: Hi! About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by bugzilla): In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) * * UNCONFIRMED 1 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=UNCONFIRMED NEW 51 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=NEW REOPENED37 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=REOPENED RESOLVED800 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=RESOLVED CLOSED 1 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=CLOSED NEEDINFO9
[Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Florian, I don´t understand [1] See [2]: there are alone 7 bugreports witht status NEEDINFO [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=NEEDINFO [2] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=---query_format=advancedbug_status=NEEDINFOcomponent=Databaseproduct=LibreOfficelist_id=110217 Regards Jochen Original-Nachricht Betreff: Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs Datum: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:08:55 +0300 Von: Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com An: Jochen oo...@jochenschiffers.de Hi Jochen! __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad Am 19.08.2012 um 20:00 schrieb Jochen oo...@jochenschiffers.de: Hi Florian, is my conclusion right? One week ago there are 899 bugreports with status NEEDINFO and today there are only 9 bugreports with status NEEDINFO? Yes, because there was no answer for 6 months+ see the table online: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?bug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopkeywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0 -0-0=x_axis_field=bug_statusx_labels_vertical=1y_axis_field=z_axis_field=width=700height=350action=wrapformat=table PS: Only 11% answered, that is why there are that much RESOLVED INVALID... Regards Jochen Am 19.08.2012 18:53, schrieb Florian Reisinger: Hi! About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by bugzilla): In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) (...) useless __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs
__ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad Am 19.08.2012 um 20:12 schrieb Jochen oo...@jochenschiffers.de: Hi Florian, I don´t understand [1] See [2]: there are alone 7 bugreports witht status NEEDINFO All of these bugs were in NEEDINFO status for 6 months + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapcumulate=1height=350longdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGwidth=700x_labels_vertical=1bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTlist_id=110234 Now, most of them have not answered -- Closed If they answer -- Reopen + check __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrapbug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopheight=350keywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=width=700x_labels_vertical=1=bug_status=NEEDINFO [2] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=---query_format=advancedbug_status=NEEDINFOcomponent=Databaseproduct=LibreOfficelist_id=110217 Regards Jochen Original-Nachricht Betreff: Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs Datum: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:08:55 +0300 Von: Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com An: Jochen oo...@jochenschiffers.de Hi Jochen! __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad Am 19.08.2012 um 20:00 schrieb Jochen oo...@jochenschiffers.de: Hi Florian, is my conclusion right? One week ago there are 899 bugreports with status NEEDINFO and today there are only 9 bugreports with status NEEDINFO? Yes, because there was no answer for 6 months+ see the table online: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?bug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopkeywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0 -0-0=x_axis_field=bug_statusx_labels_vertical=1y_axis_field=z_axis_field=width=700height=350action=wrapformat=table PS: Only 11% answered, that is why there are that much RESOLVED INVALID... Regards Jochen Am 19.08.2012 18:53, schrieb Florian Reisinger: Hi! About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by bugzilla): In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) (...) useless __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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] Fwd: Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Forgot to REPLY TO ALL... __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad Anfang der weitergeleiteten E‑Mail: *Von:* Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com *Datum:* 19. August 2012 20:08:55 OESZ *An:* Jochen oo...@jochenschiffers.de *Betreff:* *Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs* Hi Jochen! __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad Am 19.08.2012 um 20:00 schrieb Jochen oo...@jochenschiffers.de: Hi Florian, is my conclusion right? One week ago there are 899 bugreports with status NEEDINFO and today there are only 9 bugreports with status NEEDINFO? Yes, because there was no answer for 6 months+ see the table online: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?bug_file_loc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTchfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=cumulate=1email1=email2=email3=emailassigned_to1=1emailassigned_to2=1emailcc2=1emailqa_contact2=1emailreporter2=1emailtype1=substringemailtype2=substringemailtype3=substringfield0-0-0=noopkeywords=keywords_type=allwordslongdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugslongdesc_type=allwordssubstrproduct=LibreOfficeresolution=---resolution=FIXEDresolution=INVALIDresolution=WONTFIXresolution=DUPLICATEresolution=WORKSFORMEresolution=MOVEDresolution=NOTABUGresolution=NOTOURBUGshort_desc=short_desc_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrtype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=x_axis_field=bug_statusx_labels_vertical=1y_axis_field=z_axis_field=width=700height=350action=wrapformat=table PS: Only 11% answered, that is why there are that much RESOLVED INVALID... Regards Jochen Am 19.08.2012 18:53, schrieb Florian Reisinger: Hi! About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by bugzilla): In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) (...) useless __ Florian Reisinger Von meinem iPad gesendet Sent via iPad ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/ ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Flo, all, On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 07:53:35PM +0300, Florian Reisinger wrote: In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...) While the statistic alone do not really prove this to be good move, but there was a consensus on the qa call(*) and the qa list that this needs to be done to allow the QA team to keep moving and not getting bogged down in thousends of incomplete or controversal bug reports. Now, of course, such a bulk move will always hit some false positives. If that is the case for one of the bugs you reported (that is: the bug is welldocumented, complete and noncontroversial) please check: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage if the bug indeed contains all the information needed and thus send it back to REOPENED. Thanks! Best, Bjoern (*) http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/minutes-of-the-LibreOffice-QA-Call-2012-06-29-1400UTC-td3992888.html ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs
On 19/08/2012 19:20, Florian Reisinger wrote: __ Now, most of them have not answered -- Closed If they answer -- Reopen + check If you look more closely, quite a few of these (I have no stats to back me up) were reports that Bjoern had reset in November to NEEDINFO when he did his first clean-up off the cuff, by resetting declared bugs to the NEEDINFO status. Since many of the OPs at the time were unaware what that meant, it is hardly surprising, IMO, that they then remained untreated/unresponded for so long. I, for one, fell foul of this sleight of hand, and forgot the many issues that I had opened (under a different e-mail address at the time), that Florian so broad-handedly then disqualified. My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to sweepingly set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA. In my opinion, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but hey, just carry on like that and the world will be well. I know, I'll think I'll just wait 3 months and set a load of bugs to NEEDINFO, and then 3 months later strike them all out as INVALID - sounds fair ? No, didn't think so. The reasoning that says the stats go to show..., sorry, I don't buy it, it doesn't take into account the negative impact that the first bug clean sweep had on the OPs, and certainly not the second one. If I were an OP and saw what happened, I'd likely have one of the following reactions : (a) ignore the disappointing approach from QA and leave LO to the hell it is getting itself into ; (b) vociferously tell the LO project to p*ss off (we've had at least two or three of those already) (c) maybe, just maybe, grit my teeth and reset the issue to re-opened, IF, and only IF, I give a damn. The statistics you invoke as justification only take account of option (c), which is a false assumption of social behaviour. Sorry for what appears to be a rant, but this whole sordid affair has left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth, it was bad enough the first time around, and now this comes as the icing on the cake. Well, if that's how the project wants to play, so be it, but I'm a hair's breadth away from walking away from it. What has been played out here is clearly an attempt to alleviate a perceived lack of control of increasing bug count within the project. It might not have been planned that way, but that is how it looks to the outside and casual bug reporter. And then we have the gall to say that we need more people for QA - come on, who are we kidding if we act like that ? My motivation for staying is directly linked to the usage I have on a professional level of the software with regard to databases. If mine, and others, bug reports can be swept under the carpet and then be told that all we have to do is reactivate them if we're not happy, well, I'd be inclined to tell you all to take a running jump too. If I want hassle, I can go outside and pick a fight at the local pub, or for a quieter life, I can switch to competing software not a million miles away. We are paying the ransom of our own success, and that ransom should avoid alienating those who made our software popular, the casual user with a problem. OK, I've said enough. Alex ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Alex, On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:14:38PM +0200, Alex Thurgood wrote: If you look more closely, quite a few of these (I have no stats to back me up) were reports that Bjoern had reset in November to NEEDINFO when he did his first clean-up off the cuff, by resetting declared bugs to the NEEDINFO status. Since many of the OPs at the time were unaware what that meant, How so? There was a link accompanying that change asking to put the bug back into status NEW and two links explaining the background. My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to sweepingly set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA. That these old bugs were moved to NEEDINFO was an one-off artifact of the bugs having been implicitly confirmed in the old bugzilla, which started the bugs in NEW, not UNCONFIRMED. In my opinion, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but hey, just carry on like that and the world will be well. I know, I'll think I'll just wait 3 months and set a load of bugs to NEEDINFO, and then 3 months later strike them all out as INVALID - sounds fair ? No, didn't think so. Actually, closing old, incomplete and inactive bugs is not at all uncommon. Launchpad for example does that automatically: A bug that is marked incomplete is closed as expired after 90 days. (a) ignore the disappointing approach from QA and leave LO to the hell it is getting itself into ; (b) vociferously tell the LO project to p*ss off (we've had at least two or three of those already) (c) maybe, just maybe, grit my teeth and reset the issue to re-opened, IF, and only IF, I give a damn. The statistics you invoke as justification only take account of option (c), which is a false assumption of social behaviour. The question is: Would we as a project better off, if we leave the bugs in NEEDINFO? Please take a look at: http://skyfromme.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/on-the-importance-of-being-a-bug-confirmer/ and especially the table that is linked in there. The first job of QA -- as hard as it sounds -- is not to handguide each and every bug reporter along. We would love to do that, but given our limited resources and being purely volunteerbased that is simply not the first task of the QA team. The first goal is to find the most embarassing and urgent bugs and hand them over to the developers to take care of them. If you look at the table linked in the above blogpost: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?x_axis_field=resolutiony_axis_field=bug_statusz_axis_field=query_format=report-tableshort_desc_type=allwordssubstrshort_desc=product=LibreOfficebug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTlongdesc_type=allwordssubstrlongdesc=bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstrbug_file_loc=status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstrstatus_whiteboard=keywords_type=allwordskeywords=bug_id=bug_id_type=anyexactemailtype1=substringemail1=emailtype2=substringemail2=emailtype3=substringemail3=chfieldvalue=chfieldfrom=chfieldto=Nowfield0-0-0=nooptype0-0-0=noopvalue0-0-0=format=tableaction=wrap You find there are over 5000 open bugs and 200 of those are assigned to developers. The first goal of the QA team is to make sure that these bugs are the most important to address. So QA has to ensure those bugs are of the right: - quality (good triage and critical bug) - quantity (Developers should always be aware of the most important bugs to work on) Given that 87 of the assigned bugs have not seen a change in more than 180 days, it is clear that it would not help much to push more bugs in the direction of development in its current state of operation. So what remains for QA to do, is to find the most important bugs and from those the ones that are best triaged: have a reproduction scenario, a pinned down version when the bug appeared, a bibisect. Given the limited resources the team currently has and 5000 open bugs, we have to focus on those bugs -- and they are unlikely to be found in those bugs in state NEEDINFO for 6 months. _If_ they are, they hopefully will get reopened quickly. Sorry for what appears to be a rant, but this whole sordid affair has left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth, it was bad enough the first time around, and now this comes as the icing on the cake. Yes, we should have learned from the first bulk change, and the execution on this one was quite a bit unfortunate. The next time this should: - be announced on _all_ the relevant list a 1-2 weeks before it happens - on the planet with a blogpost - best be two-staged: - first comment on the bug: If this bug does not receive the requested information (or confirmation by another contributor) it will get closed in 14 days - then close those that still are untouched 14 days later. Well, if that's how the project wants to play, so be it, but
[Libreoffice-qa] Idea about ancient NEEDINFO bugs Nr. 1
Hi! Beside of the QA confcall: Every of this should be closed with an automatic message... This message should contain a long string like rf4g55gb48h4 So that we can search that string and close that: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=88813field0-0-0=bug_statuschfieldto=Nowquery_format=advancedchfield=qa_contactbug_status=NEEDINFOtype0-0-0=changedbeforevalue0-0-0=-10mproduct=LibreOffice All found with this search should be closed: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=88818field0-0-0=bug_statuschfieldto=Nowquery_format=advancedchfield=qa_contactbug_status=NEEDINFOlongdesc=rf4g55gb48h4type0-0-0=changedaftervalue0-0-0=-2mproduct=LibreOfficelongdesc_type=allwordssubstr -- Florian Reisinger ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org 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/
