Hi there, So - in the attempt to get something concretely actionable out of this; I liked this idea:
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 12:30 -0700, bfo wrote: > Call for bugs (CFB). I think that CFB should be introduced in the release > schedule (example http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.6). When > to do it and how is another matter. I think that when RC1 is released a CFB > should be started and bugfixing planned when RC2 is released (2 weeks > are enough?). Bugs should be nominated by QA from ESC stats - regressions > and MAB list. Hard code freeze is in next 4 weeks, so the question is - > how many bugs can be fixed in 4 weeks ? So - I like the idea of highlighting a small set of the most critical bugs each-week - say five; and having them linked in the ESC minutes with a small write-up. Of course that would need to be generated by QA. The bit that is unworkable in the above is the problem of starting QA in earnest only at RC1 :-) That is is -way- too late. We have to be doing QA on master, Betas etc. I hope people realise that the -intention- is that you can run 'master' / daily snapshots and have as bug-free experience as you do on a release branch ;-) well - at least, that's a goal we need help finding and fixing the bugs as early as possible. Why is RC1 -way- too late ? The time it takes to get a fix made, tested, reviewed and included into the next RC is sufficiently long that being certain that bugs fixed in RC1 are truly fixed without knock-on regressions by the time we hit RC3 is already not optimal. > how many bugs can be fixed in 4 weeks ? There is this fallacy that because RC1 is separated from final release by four weeks, that we have four weeks to fix bugs :-) there is a three week window here at the outside. Furthermore, we're substantially only interested in screaming ship-stoppers for the RC phase - anything else creates too much risk. The earlier we can start aggressive bug hunting, and a low tolerance for new regressions the better; most ideally in master. On the other hand, getting some top #5 bugs chewed over at the ESC call each week from Beta0 onwards sounds like it would be a worthwhile thing to do. Of course, there is no guarantee they get fixed and this data should already existing in the MAB tracker for the next release - but it might be helpful to get wider exposure. Are you volunteering to write that ? if so, the ESC agenda goes out tomorrow ;-) ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot _______________________________________________ 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/