Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice Server Installation GUI - Call for testing (and time for feature requests)

[Mas]

On Nov 3, 2012 12:32 PM, "Florian Reisinger"  wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> My program soon is going to be final:
http://flosmind.wordpress.com/libreoffice-server-install-gui/ and
http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/libreoffice-server-installation-gui(Here
1.9.8 is shown as the latest version, but it will download the newest
anyway...)
>
> PLEASE test it and give some feedback
>
> Thanks ;)
>
> PS: it would be nice to have this discussion on the QA ML
> --
> Florian Reisinger
> LibreOffice herunterladen!
>
> ___
> 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/

Nice work. I will test this out

Mas
___
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/

[Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice Server Installation GUI - Call for testing (and time for feature requests)

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi!

My program soon is going to be final: 
http://flosmind.wordpress.com/libreoffice-server-install-gui/ and 
http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/libreoffice-server-installation-gui 
(Here 1.9.8 is shown as the latest version, but it will download the 
newest anyway...)


PLEASE test it and give some feedback

Thanks ;)

PS: it would be nice to have this discussion on the QA ML
--
_Florian Reisinger _
LibreOffice herunterladen! 
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs - appealing

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Florian Reisinger wrote:
> On the other way HardHack nomination process and fixing rate is
> quite good example that when you show which bugs should be fixed,
> this could work and better the quality of the product. The time has
> come to introduce this on a massive scale. I would propose to fight
> dataloss and regressions first.

The reason why the HardHacks work is precisely because the are not done on a
'massive scale'. So: no, that is not an option at all.

Best,

Bjoern
___
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/

[Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs - appealing

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi!
This mail seems to only have reached me...


   Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote
   If we would have 10 people who do an extra review per day for
   the Bugs from Florians queries, we would be through before next spring.

Hi!
It is possible, but I am concerned about another thing. Look at this chart:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product=LibreOffice&datasets=NEW
There are already more than 3500 bugs ready to go for developers. What 
good if we add another 1000 (with current backlog in UNCONFIRMED it is 
possible)? Looking at regressions' and MABs' stats every week you have 
to be a very strong mental person to continue playing with bugs... You 
put an effort and energy to process them, but the stack is growing 
anyway. It is sisyphean work...
The real problem is that there is no roadmap to fix those issues. More, 
in my opinion, without Component managers, responsible for nominating 
those bugs for each maintenance release (wishful thinking enabled), 
considering current rate of closing max. 8 Bugzilla bugs daily, it is 
simply impossible.
On the other way HardHack nomination process and fixing rate is quite 
good example that when you show which bugs should be fixed, this could 
work and better the quality of the product. The time has come to 
introduce this on a massive scale. I would propose to fight dataloss and 
regressions first.

Best regards.



I agree wholeheartedly to the statement above ;)
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

Hi,

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 02:16:55PM +0100, Florian Reisinger wrote:
> I want to make life easier, but maybe it is the wrong approach, but
> IMHO bugs reported against old beta (and RC) versions should get
> checked, because (the possibility is higher in beta stadium) this bug
> has been already fixed / is a duplicate of another bug (BTW: Does
> anyone know a way to especially search for possible duplicates..?))
> AND what is most important the 3.3 and 3.4 won't be developed further
> (soon the same with 3.6).

But when there is no way to check if people checked with a newer version,
nagging them to do something which the possibly already did will cause
irritation and confusion.

> I excluded the enhancement request because of one reason: I don't
> understand why we allow people to file an enhancement request, because
> a) The developer codes features he likes / would like to have b) We
> create deceitful hopes, because the submitter thinks we will implement
> every feature request (This paragraph = My opinion)

The feature request fantasies need an outlet and as long as we can separate
them in queries, its fine to have them on bugzilla. Also it is a good way to
bring together people with a common interest (a feature), resulting in product
improvement.

> Why isn't it trivial to set the version to the one used at the moment
> of bug submission

Because there are a lot of bugs checked with multiple versions (but not all) by
multiple reporters. In a ideal world, "version" wouldnt be a field, but a list
of all the versions and then a BUGREPORTED/CANTREPRODUCE/UNTESTED tristate. It
would star with all in UNTESTED, with the expception of the reporters version
-- which is BUGREPORTED. Others could then add too that.

Best,

Bjoern
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs - appealing

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 04:54:40AM -0700, bfo wrote:
> It is possible, but I am concerned about another thing. Look at this chart: 
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product=LibreOffice&datasets=NEW
> There are already more than 3500 bugs ready to go for developers. What good
> if we add another 1000 (with current backlog in UNCONFIRMED it is possible)?

Having visibility of those bugs is not bad at all. And historically for
LibreOffice once 1/3 need to be fixed by developers and 2/3 are
dupes/invalids/etc., so from the current unconfirmed bugs we can expect ~500
that actually need developer work. And of those, again ~1/3, that is ~150 bugs
are feature requests, leaving some 350 bugs that need developer input.

Best,

Bjoern
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi!



Am 03.11.2012 um 13:18 schrieb Bjoern Michaelsen
:

> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:57:27PM -0700, bfo wrote:
>> There was one autoclosing nightmare recently and I thought no one dare to
>> propose another one any time soon... The problem is that most of bugs are
>> not checked by anyone. As my experience shows - one manual ping can resolve
>> most issues or transfer the bug to developers. We need more people to read
>> bugs and process them, not more ideas how to autoclose them.
>
> The main problem with the last autoclose was that we had the data in an
> inconsistent state, as stuff moved from NEW to NEEDINFO without human
> interaction and then again from NEEDINFO to INVALID. That should not happen
> again as we have the state UNCORNFIRMED now.
>
> I dont quite get what Florian is aiming for. Flo, could you please explain
> which bugs you want to close (not with a query, but with words and an
> explanation why)?

I want to make life easier, but maybe it is the wrong approach, but
IMHO bugs reported against old beta (and RC) versions should get
checked, because (the possibility is higher in beta stadium) this bug
has been already fixed / is a duplicate of another bug (BTW: Does
anyone know a way to especially search for possible duplicates..?))
AND what is most important the 3.3 and 3.4 won't be developed further
(soon the same with 3.6).

I excluded the enhancement request because of one reason: I don't
understand why we allow people to file an enhancement request, because
a) The developer codes features he likes / would like to have b) We
create deceitful hopes, because the submitter thinks we will implement
every feature request (This paragraph = My opinion)


>
> Closing bugs because there was no version specified is not an option -- that 
> is
> not to be expected from the reporter as it is nontrivial for him to check.

Why isn't it trivial to set the version to the one used at the moment
of bug submission

>
> However, these (currently 279 bugs) have been in NEEDINFO for 3 month and have
> not seen a reply since then:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?n2=1&f1=longdesc&list_id=156984&o1=changedafter&o2=changedafter&n1=1&query_format=advanced&f2=bug_status&bug_status=NEEDINFO&v1=2012-08-01&v2=2012-08-01&product=LibreOffice
>
> It is ok to close those as INVALID IMHO. But: this needs to be well prepared,
> the message going with it should be discussed here on the list. We should also
> sent a warning a la "This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than three month
> without a comment adding new information. This means we assume that we do not
> have enough information to carry forward solving your problem. Please provide
> the missing information and set the bug to state NEW. If nothing is added to
> this bug in the next 14 days, it will be closed as invalid." to these bugs
> before closing them.

+1

>
> We might get 10% reopened with the missing info (which is good) and get rid of
> 90%, who would have never completed their bug anyway (which is good in a minor
> way too).
>
+1

> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>

Florian
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs - appealing

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 10:50:57AM +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> So it is. If we would have 10 people who do an extra review per day
> for the Bugs from Florians queries, we would be through before next
> spring. 

... if nobody files any new incomplete bugs, I assume?

Best,

Bjoern
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:57:27PM -0700, bfo wrote:
> There was one autoclosing nightmare recently and I thought no one dare to
> propose another one any time soon... The problem is that most of bugs are
> not checked by anyone. As my experience shows - one manual ping can resolve
> most issues or transfer the bug to developers. We need more people to read
> bugs and process them, not more ideas how to autoclose them. 

The main problem with the last autoclose was that we had the data in an
inconsistent state, as stuff moved from NEW to NEEDINFO without human
interaction and then again from NEEDINFO to INVALID. That should not happen
again as we have the state UNCORNFIRMED now.

I dont quite get what Florian is aiming for. Flo, could you please explain
which bugs you want to close (not with a query, but with words and an
explanation why)?

Closing bugs because there was no version specified is not an option -- that is
not to be expected from the reporter as it is nontrivial for him to check.

However, these (currently 279 bugs) have been in NEEDINFO for 3 month and have
not seen a reply since then:

 
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?n2=1&f1=longdesc&list_id=156984&o1=changedafter&o2=changedafter&n1=1&query_format=advanced&f2=bug_status&bug_status=NEEDINFO&v1=2012-08-01&v2=2012-08-01&product=LibreOffice

It is ok to close those as INVALID IMHO. But: this needs to be well prepared,
the message going with it should be discussed here on the list. We should also
sent a warning a la "This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than three month
without a comment adding new information. This means we assume that we do not
have enough information to carry forward solving your problem. Please provide
the missing information and set the bug to state NEW. If nothing is added to
this bug in the next 14 days, it will be closed as invalid." to these bugs
before closing them.

We might get 10% reopened with the missing info (which is good) and get rid of
90%, who would have never completed their bug anyway (which is good in a minor
way too).

Best,

Bjoern
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs - appealing

[bfo]

Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote
> If we would have 10 people who do an extra review per day for 
> the Bugs from Florians queries, we would be through before next spring. 

Hi!
It is possible, but I am concerned about another thing. Look at this chart: 
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product=LibreOffice&datasets=NEW
There are already more than 3500 bugs ready to go for developers. What good
if we add another 1000 (with current backlog in UNCONFIRMED it is possible)?
Looking at regressions' and MABs' stats every week you have to be a very
strong mental person to continue playing with bugs... You put an effort and
energy to process them, but the stack is growing anyway. It is sisyphean
work...
The real problem is that there is no roadmap to fix those issues. More, in
my opinion, without Component managers, responsible for nominating those
bugs for each maintenance release (wishful thinking enabled), considering
current rate of closing max. 8 Bugzilla bugs daily, it is simply impossible. 
On the other way HardHack nomination process and fixing rate is quite good
example that when you show which bugs should be fixed, this could work and
better the quality of the product. The time has come to introduce this on a
massive scale. I would propose to fight dataloss and regressions first.
Best regards.




--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Stats-I-plotted-Getting-rid-of-bugs-tp4016541p4016629.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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stats I plotted + Getting rid of bugs - appealing

[Rainer Bielefeld]

bfo schrieb:


There was one autoclosing nightmare recently and I thought no one dare to
propose another one any time soon...



Hi,

I agree! There is no benefit from putting bugs from 1 drawer to an other 
one  without any research, but all these mass changes cause lots of 
emails, break queries, ... . I dislike that empty activity.


These old unconfirmed bugs cause no problems at all, and some of those 
in Florian's queries have been reopened after the last mass close 
because of good reasons (Enhancement request, ...) I have a feed showing 
Bugs what have been reopened from the last mass close, currently I count 
150 (from 900 or so closed ones). And a sample I did before the mass 
close showed that 1/3 of those bugs were real bugs. So recommend to 
review bugs, not to carry them around.



The problem is that most of bugs are
not checked by anyone. As my experience shows - one manual ping can resolve
most issues or transfer the bug to developers. We need more people to read
bugs and process them, not more ideas how to autoclose them.


So it is. If we would have 10 people who do an extra review per day for 
the Bugs from Florians queries, we would be through before next spring. 
We urgently need more reviewers, and the most promising way is to ask 
reporters who look qualified to help to review an other bug. Only 5 new 
power-reviewers /of 10 who have been asked) would help a lot. We should 
do a systematic approach to that (may be with a list who asked whom for 
additional reports to avoid double work and annoyance for the "candidates".


Best regards

Rainer
___
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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] 3.6 Features webpage -- update "Most Annoying Bugs" section

[Marc Paré]

Hi Michael,

Le 2012-11-02 06:38, Michael Meeks a écrit :

Hi Marc,

On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 05:25 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, all the bugs mentioned in the "Most Annoying Bugs"
section (bottom of page) of our 3.6 Features webpage have been resolved?
Can I go ahead and update that section with strike-throughs and mark
them as resolved?[1]


Sounds good to me; I imagine completely removing them would be a good
idea. IMHO it'd be good to have the windows/a11y nasty there at least
until we ship 3.6.4. Good to leave the MAB link I guess :-)

Thanks !

Michael.



Is the windows/a11y nasty 
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53474 ?


Cheers,

Marc


--
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
http://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org

___
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/