On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, I. Park <ipark...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Rob, > > O.k., I'm not too sure if your "incorrectly marked CONFIRMED" topic > mentioned below has to do with Bugzilla, but I noticed on couple > occasions that when filling out new bugs the CONFIRMED is set by > default. I had to go back a few times and change it to UNCONFIRMED. >
That's fine. When a tester enters a new bug it probably should be marked CONFIRMED. That's because testers know what they are doing and would only enter a bug report for a bug that was real and reproducible. -Rob > Just my two-cents. > > I. Park > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/6/13 1:54 PM, Yuzhen Fan wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> Here is the list of identified candidates[1]/[2] which are proposed to >>>> be 4.0.0 release blockers. Please indicate your selections for release >>>> blockers by giving 1 vote to 1 bug (the vote field is beside the >>>> importance field, in a bug form). We hope to get the vote score this >>>> week, any bugs you think most critical to you, please bring out and >>>> let's discuss. >>> >>> Please wait, I think we have not agreed on this approach. Voting in the >>> issue is not really helpful. I believe many of these issues can be >>> removed from list and are probably not valid at all. >>> >>> I prefer to discuss showstopper issues on the list as we did for AOO 3.4. >>> >> >> With 3.4 we proposed each release blocker on the list, in its own >> thread, right? But it is not going the be much better if we start >> with 90 new threads. >> >> It looks like all the proposed release blockers are marked confirmed. >> A few of them pre-date AOO 3.4, but most are more recent. >> >> But with a further look I see some were incorrectly marked >> "CONFIRMED". I think some volunteers when they first started set that >> field after trying to confirm a defect, without understanding that >> this state should only set if the confirmation test was successful. >> So we need to review the comments on each bug to see which ones are >> actually reproduced. I'll try to clean up a few tonight while I >> watch TV. >> >> Also, we probably need to prioritize. For example, a "shallow crash" >> (a crash in a common. top-level operation) is higher priority than a >> crash that only occurs with a specific malformed document. >> >> -Rob >> >>> Juergen >>> >>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&remaction=run&namedcmd=4.0.0_release_blocker%3F&sharer_id=249289&list_id=64740 >>>> [2] Also attach the file for the list >>>> (AOO4.0.0_release_blocker_candidates.ods) >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Yu Zhen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
