El 18/04/12 20:19, Pedro escribió:
Michael Stahl-2 wrote
imho to
prevent this abuse the priorities should be settable only by experienced
QA or developers, not by everybody.
Having done such mistakes in the past (still doing?) I couldn't agree more.
Michael Stahl-2 wrote
but what really gets my attention these days is a "regression" keyword.
Excellent :) Regressions are indeed the worst form of getting people
unhappy. Getting stuck on something that used to work and doesn't any more
is more frustrating that something that never worked :)
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-do-not-update-MAB-without-a-comment-was-Re-Bug-37361-LibreOffice-3-5-most-annoying-bus-tp3919364p3920906.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/
+1
I have remarked sometimes about this.
Regression are the worst, specially those what change the results
without notice, more critic in calc. And those what leads a crash.
I believe the regressions must be have the high priority, and IMHO solve
the regressions make easy the development, because avoid crossing bugs
with new improvements.
Miguel Ángel.
_______________________________________________
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/
