Thorsten,
Thank you for your careful reply.
I agree that major issues are generally picked up by the process and I
have escalated at least one from these forums. Those are not a problem
and that all seems to work fine.
My concern was more about the little issues, which don't really warrant
discussion here, but still need fixing and, if they are regressions, are
quite likely to be easy and desirable to fix quickly. The example
i#93577, is a minor but irritating regression, and the one I "shouldn't"
have escalated the way I did. No doubt that will now get handled
appropriately.
To illustrate that the process doesn't always work, you could look at
#88626. That was a similar minor regression, marked as such, but I
deliberately left it to be taken care of by the process. In the end
nothing at all happened. After around 4 months, when I retested, it had
been independently fixed, so I closed it. There is no evidence that
anyone else ever looked at it, though of course they may have. From this
end, whatever work was done did seem to be a bit of a waste of time.
What perhaps is needed in the process is that there is always at least
one response, so that the qa originator is aware that the issue has been
noticed. I felt that that was more likely with the previous process, but
perhaps I'm wrong.
These are just examples, and not at all important in themselves, but
they do illustrate the point. I'd be surprised if there weren't other
similar examples. The main point I want to make is that it shouldn't be
necessary for the originator to have to follow up on these kind of
issues, particularly minor regressions. It would be better if the
process took care of them.
Mike
Thorsten Ziehm wrote:
Hi Mike,
what do you mean with ownerless? Some default owners for some categories
were changed to owners like '...needsconfirm'. Do you mean that these
issues are ownerless?
That isn't really correct. One the one hand it is correct, that the
owner isn't a real person. But on the other hand the issues are handled
as before. All issues are thrown to a mailing list separated for each
component and as I know the Sun QA teams and the Sun developer teams
graping in these lists for critical issues. But as before it isn't
possible anymore for one person to work on all issues. Therefore it
was decided in the projects itself, that they want to change the
owner to a 'dummy'-owner.
In the past we often heard from community members, that they do not
want to work on issues where a specific person is set as owner. This
person has the ownership and is responsible to work on the issue.
But it isn't possible anymore for these persons. The issue numbers
are too high beside the high work load for approving CWSes.
So the 'nonperson' owner should show that everybody can work on the
issue to confirm it, set it to new etc.
But important issues shouldn't be overseen in this process.
You wrote, that the set the target to 3.0.1 to make it more visible.
This isn't the correct way. If you think it is important for this
release, you have to write a mail to the releases-list
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). If you do not know if it is important
enough, you can ask here before. But to set a specific target without
knowing
if a developer can or will fix this, isn't a good way.
So please discuss your issue here or let somebody of the community
confirm your issue and discuss with him the priority and the target
of the issue. If you need help from the QA team leads on OOo you can
find their list here.
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Team_Leads
Thorsten
Mike Hall wrote:
With the change in procedures, in which submitted bugs effectively
end up ownerless if no-one picks them up, I'm unclear what steps to
take when reporting bugs that seem to be in the category of needing
fixing in the next couple of releases. Some get picked up fine.
Others seem to disappear into a black hole. I was worried at the time
the system was changed that triage would be weakened and in practice
I think that is what has happened.
I've changed the target on one of mine to 3.0.1 to force it into
triage and I'll probably get shouted at for doing so. But what is the
right procedure? I've got another similar one sitting waiting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
