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
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
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
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
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
+ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
://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
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
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
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
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
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
:
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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...)
*
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
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...)
*
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
54 matches
Mail list logo
