Hello All,
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz < [email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Thorsten, > > > Le 18 mai 2010 à 17:50, Thorsten Ziehm a écrit : > > > > > Hi Charles, > > > > first of all. I'm sorry about my wording. I do not want to offend you > > by using the wording 'your fr project'. I want to say only that you > > started the discussion with Ubuntu in the name of the fr project. Sorry. > > No problem. > > > > > Back to the discussion. Comments are in-line : > > > > On 05/18/10 16:48, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > >> Hello Thorsten, > >> Le Tue, 18 May 2010 16:09:22 +0200, > >> Thorsten Ziehm <[email protected]> a écrit : > >>> Hi Charles, > >>> > >>> I read the thread and saw different aspects discussed here. > >>> > >>> 1. Your fr project and other projects got feedback about the different > >>> quality of different OOo versions (distributed by different > >>> companies/communities etc.) > >> "My fr" project is not mine any more than it is everybody's, and it is > >> my job to help every native-language project out there. Besides, it's > >> not just about localization, it could affect also other parts of the > >> code. > > > > I know, that this discussion isn't about localization. It's about > > code contribution and different products with the same name. > > > >>> 2. There are issues in IZ which aren't related to OOo (vanilla). They > >>> are for OOo builds by other Linux distros. > >> Yes, but there are also so many other bugs we don't know about... > > > > I do not know, what do you mean. Which bugs we do not know? In which > > product? > > Sorry, I meant: there are so many bugs in Linux distros we don't know > about. > They are available for anyone to browse, search, refer to via a link, screen-scrape.... > > > > >>> 3. It is in discussion to import all issue reports of (e.g.) Ubuntu > >>> into IssueTracker. > >> Not exactly; I'd rather describe it as opening a communication channel > >> about linux distributions bugs; this is not about duplication of > >> already existing bugs that are identified in IZ. > > > > Perhaps here are the different understandings between us. I do not > > see IssueTracker as a communication channel which can help here. > > > I didn't either until last Thursday.... :-) But IZ can be very effective as > it displays accurate and mostly factual data. > > > > >>> As I read here the products are different (different build system, > >>> different patch levels ...). I couldn't understand why these different > >>> products should be tracked in one system (IssueZilla). How should this > >>> eliminate the different quality of the products or how should this > >>> help to make the differences between the product more visible for the > >>> users? > >> It is not a direct effect; rather, it is by setting up an online > >> communication channel we (by we I mean, OOo, the package maintainers, > >> the Go-OOo tem) will be able to gradually treat the issues and identify > >> structural problems (specific patches, etc.) > > > > Do you talk about existing issues in IZ and issues which were/will > wrongly be written in IZ? Then we are on the same side. Then we need > > a mechanism to address these issues accordingly. > > I do talk about this BUT I do specifically talk about issues which will be > brought on by OOo packagers of Linux distributions . > > > > > But as I understand your discussion it's more than this, I'm right? > > Yes. It's not just about putting our IZ in order, it is about using it to > connect with the downstream. > This would be a nice feature for the IZ migration to Kenai - ala the Remote Bug Watches feature under LaunchPad IZ, IMO. I have no idea if that is an added feature that the LP folks put in and if so if that is OS - I would expect so if it is. One issue that has 'made the circuit' looking for the responsible party, and showing the RBW feature (scroll the page to the bottom, the RBW is on the right) would be: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openoffice.org/+bug/118994 Might not be a waste of your time to read that issue over either - it is a bug IMO and is ours..but alas it is what it is. > > > >>> Beside this Mechtilde brought up a more critical point, thanks for > >>> this. The missing process for issues for other products like the > >>> vanilla OOo. Currently all issues have default owners. Who should > >>> be the default-owner of such issues? What about target handling? What > >>> is about the status of such issues (fixed in Ubuntu build XYZ, but not > >>> in OOo vanilla)? Who should check/confirm/fix the issues? ... > >> well perhaps we don't have to walk all the way up to these questions at > >> first. What I mean by this is that first need reporting, then we decide > >> whether we want to take actions or not. But first and foremost, we need > >> input. Otherwise; these are very valid questions. > > > > In my opinion the process has to be discussed first. As I understand > > this thread correctly, I am not the only one. > > > Yes. The full process beyond the reporting of bugs specific to whatever > distribution is not determined at all yet, because the emphasis was on > collecting the reports first. > > > > > >>> I do not think it is a good idea to press different products in one > >>> system (here Bugtracking system). It will bring more complexity in > >>> this system. It will not bring a common visibility for the end users. > >>> And as I understand your request correctly, this is one major part > >>> of the discussion between your project and the Ubuntu team. > >> Thorsten: I was not representing "my project" but OOo and I was there > >> as a member of the Community Council who was on a "fact-finding" > >> mission together with Sophie Gautier :-) > >> It might bring more complexity (although we certainly can handle this > >> as I don't foresee the number of reports to be very important) and it > >> will bring a common visibility of the bugs our users are writing us > >> about, not knowing what's a bug tracker nor what the difference between > >> ooo-build and the vanilla build is. Thanks to this visibility we might > >> then be able to gain a better understanding of what's wrong, whether > >> we can help in the upstream, whether Go-OO can help or if it's just a > >> packager downstream doing some lousy job with our software. > > > > I do not understand, how the bugtracking system should help to identify > > the problem of the different derivatives of OOo. The issues which were > > written to Ubuntu should show them the problems. If they do not know, > > why they are different then the vanilla OOo and the go-ooo version, than > > nobody on OOo can help anyway. > > > Actually this is even worse than what you think. They don't collect bugs > and when they do they report it to Go-OO, but they don't care whether it is > related to Go-OO, to the upstream or to the Debian patches. @Charles - granted I wasn't part of your conversation, so maybe you have cause, but that sounds a bit strong. Looking at the Ubuntu IZ for OO.o it seems they (meaning Chris Cheney it seems) are tying to triage the items to the correct parties - at least as much as we are in the OO.o IZ, from what I've seen - and at least where it is between OO.o and go-oo. The Ubuntu IZ has ~1126 open issues for OO.o today. A little over 427 are marked, in the subject line, as [upstream] and another 81 as [ooo-build]. Looking at a few of the [upstream] flagged issues I see links to OO.o issues in quite a few of them. The fact that Ubuntu includes patches from Debian I did not know and there I don't see anything in their IZ where they are kicking things to them. So in fact, both the upstream project (us) and Go-OO receive "unsorted > trash" . > While there is no real excuse for a package maintainer not doing his/her > job well, there is the problem of the quality management of the downstream > versions that end up smacking us, the OOo project, in the face. I'm using > again the case of the search bar and dialog that was not translated in the > Ubuntu build: Not only had the maintainers never heard about the bug, but > individual users reported it on our users list. We cannot then tell the > users that it's not our fault, because the user uses OOo, not some specific > versions of OOo that underwent through specific packaging that will be > completely arcane to her. So in the end whether we like it or not, we have > to take actions otherwise it is our adoption and our image that will be > severely hampered. The good thing is, for the first time, we have our > project, the Go-OO team, and the Linux distribution maintainers who are > ready to work together to solve the problem. > Is there someone from the Ubuntu team on this email thread? <snip> Thanks Drew
