https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134946
--- Comment #23 from Telesto <tele...@surfxs.nl> ---
(In reply to Timur from comment #20)
> Telesto, you are flooding Bugzilla in a negative way and I wish Xisco
> noticed that and warned you.
> Many bugs are meaningless, I already explained why but you just continue.
-> Many bugs.. (list them all) meaningless (assessment; with an
explanation/argumentation) Except discontent, finding it unimportant.
I already explained why; so it's easy to repeat then or give pointers. Got some
summary feedback
>
> Look Bug 134773 and bug 134749, and all bugs on that file are of no use,
> file itself is wrong and crashes and only crash was worth reporting, instead
> you are reporting bullets when default style has bullets!?
Bug 134749 (wrong bug). Bug 134773 is my fault; not noticing the style. However
still think there was a truth to it.
File itself is wrong -> technical assessment. How do you conclude the file is
wrong? That the file crashes doesn't say something about the file itself.
> Anchoring and layout and text flow are another pointless group of bugs that
> you report for yourself, I doubt anyone will look at that ans solve one by
> one.
-> Can't even solved one by one. Isn't desired approach anyhow. However we have
total different mindset. You see bugs as isolated problems which can solved by
themselves. I see bugs as expressions/ symptoms of a problem. Sometimes a bug
fixes solved 20 bugs which seems unrelated. In this case those bugs (related to
anchors) are more intended as documentation for testing proposes. Lots of the
bugs in the anchor / wrap meta bug report have a shared root cause. Even the
empty pages in documents are related to anchoring. Even then when they can be
bisected to a different commits. It might be that a commit only accelerated the
presence of something underlying being flawed. Even apparently total unrelated
bug as FILEOPEN DOCX looping. So really need in depth understanding. And I'm
surely not claiming to be 'an expert' be I do some patterns
I sometimes get 4 different backtraces for the same crash bug. The pattern
sometimes arises over time.
> How can you not comprehend how to single out what is reparable and what is
> bad design and not easily.
A) Bug tracker should contain everything. Not limited to what's reparable or
not. Nor if its really important or less important. It's only a bug database
containing problems/symptoms/issues and enhancement request. Ideally nicely
categorized into Meta bugs.
I'm surely know capable to asses 'reparable'. They DOCX/DOC compatibility is
sometimes quite hard. So not likely to happen in short of medium term. Hover I
can't access what's doable or not. Which looks 'easy' superficially can be
pretty complex if you ask a DEV. And I really don't know that DOC
specifications. So are there features inside LibreOffice which can't be
exported? And how are they converted? I can't asses really.
And what does reparable mean without an actual developer being around since
years. What to make of Base bugs? Or MacOS bugs.
And they image handling was pretty bad design, IMHO. However it did change and
solved quite a number of issues. I can't tell what the future brings
"How can you not comprehend" not rally a nice tone. I'm still undecided how I
should read it. As arrogance/ frustration / or you're style of of communicating
in general. I do notice you're "complaining" a lot. Even at people who report
something a bug tracker the first time. Something about 'use search'. As if
they should know how it works. Or should people who make account get a manual
to read and a making an digital exam to be allowed on the bug tracker?
And you don't even do yourself what you ask from others. You're bug reports
don't contain any information of tested versions.. You're report come
structurally with detailed description how created? You 're comments are always
precise, exact, complete, so everybody can follow without asking again.
Having exact knowledge of the topic, not sometimes erratically marking things
as duplicate. So stacking stuff together which doesn't belong. So we have 1 bug
with 33 people in CC reporting similar things but not the SAME thing. And you
operate as ghost. You come and go. Not attached to any bug doc in CC.
You're free to ignore my bugs, if you dislike them. Dieter opted for that. I
surely created a little flood of bugs; but not assuming it this is
structurally.
----
As about the UNCONFIRMED BUGS issue, I have a part in it, but only *a* cause.
Majority of open bugs aren't from me. The problem is that hard to asses cases
keep open as UNCONFIRMED as everybody ignores them (so stacking up). And some
not being set to NEEDINFO. So i'm not the cause of that problem, I might
accelerate it so the 1000 open bugs is reached early. You could introduce some
HARDCASE status or something like that to get them out of UNCONFIRMED (if
UNCONFIRMED is some kind of KPI). I surely looked at a number of those, but
surely no clue what to make of save error using network. Or can't print with my
Brother printer. Holding the middle between UNCONFIRMED and NEEDINFO (but with
tendency to NEEDINFO)
And another part of the story is of course QA being understaffed IMHO. Based on
my subjective perception are Xisco, Buovjaga, Aron, V Stuart Foote are less
active at QA. As stating this as fact, not judgmental. So a backlog will build
up pretty quick.
@Terrence, can't asses you're motivation for QA work. I assume the point is not
feeling to make any progress? Or is it more they depressing 1000 bug
UNCONFIRMED count?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
