Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
> > > > After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of > > status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for > > lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO > > at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for > > one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. > The last one was very different from what we're doing now. These bugs are currently in NEEDINFO status, the last mass closings have been on bugs that were UNCONFIRMED. We have decided that closing UNCONFIRMED bugs without anyone ever looking at them is not okay, but if we have looked at it and given our volunteer time and have determined the bug needs more information, if the user fails to provide that information, we should assume the bug is abandoned. Currently our backlog of UNCONFIRMED bugs is hovering around 1,400, we will not waste our time looking at NEEDINFO bugs again - we simply don't have the time to waste. > > > > IMO, the rationale behind closing bugs in this way, i.e. "let's do it > > and if the user/reporter is really motivated he/she is bound to get > > back" sends completely the wrong message to the user community at large: > This isn't the rationale at all. This is a friendly reminder that they reported a bug and abandoned it and announcing our new policy which is to maintain a clean and accurate bug tracker. We could really say "you abandoned this bug and it'll never be looked at unless you take the time to update it" but that would be much less polite, this is just a friendly "this bug has gone MONTHS without any activity after a QA member took the time to look at your issue, if no activity occurs in the next month, the bug will be assumed to be fixed and/or abandoned" -- the exact wording will be agreed upon later. > > > > - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the > > project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail; > No, it assumes that we all have a responsibility when using open source (users and contributors) and that we can't ask volunteers to waste time on poorly submitted bugs that have been abandoned by their reporters. > > > > - that many of these bug reports are fallacious or fanciful. > > > > While some of them might well fall into the second category, I fear that > > many are from people who were incited to use the bug submission > > assistant after encountering a troublesome or even serious problem in > > their usage of the product and are then expected to get the "community > > fervour". The reality of this is that if you make a tool easily > > accessible for reporting bugs, then people simply expect that report to > > be followed up on by someone else, more knowledgeable. This doesn't mean > > that their bug report is any less worthy or relevant just because they > > don't then follow-up. > Again, I agree with Petr, this product is free, if you're going to use it and expect your issues to be tackled, we can reasonably expect a user to at least update their own bugs. Ideally they would get "community fervour" and start contributing outside of their own bug reports, but...this is unrealistic. > > > > To me, the solution being proposed is yet another high-handed way of > > "improving the stats" without due regard to those who made the effort in > > the first place to submit a report. > This has nothing to do with stats, and I love stats. It's a matter of keeping an accurate bug tracking system. INVALID will show us how many bugs are essentially abandoned by their reporter which is not our fault. What Petr said was exactly my feeling, it's a matter of, what's the point of leaving these bugs in NEEDINFO status when our contributors have already looked at the bug and determined more is needed before we proceed AT ALL. NEEDINFO status should "mean something" and that something should be "A QA member has looked at this bug within the last 30-60 days and determined it needs more information before proceeding" -- NOT "this bug was looked at two years ago and determined that it needs more information but has since been abandoned and will sit in this status forever" These all seem like reasonable expectations of the user/reporter as well as our contributors. Just to repeat, we *will not* close a bug without a QA member first looking at the bug, this means a contributor has already spent time on it, expecting more of our contributors is not right -- ie. them guessing at what a reporter is trying to report and spending a ton of time trying to reproduce from a terrible list of steps or a lack of an attachment which actually shows the issue. Best Regards, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.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.l
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On 02/06/2013 09:50 AM, Robert Großkopf wrote: Hi Alex, After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. All open bugs in Base today: 225 Bugs, which are "Unconfimed": 27 Bugs, which are "Needinfo": 26 I don't think that we need automatically way to get these bugs away. Problem of many of these bugs: They couldn't be confirmed by everybody, because there are special configurations with external databases or Mac. What we need: developers, who will work on bugs in Base. There are many bugs "New" and opened since the first version of LO. Robert I agree with Robert. This also goes to a complaint that I saw on the LibreOffice user list. The person wanted more time spent by the developers on removing the bugs that exist in LO and less time on producing more code that contains more bugs. This is poor planning. From Robert's data, 172 open bugs have not had a developer correct . These are the ones that have been confirmed and contained enough data for a developer to begin work. That is 76% of the bugs reported for Base. A bug reporting system is only as good as the resources allocated to fixing the bugs. Otherwise, people send in bug reports that may or may not even have a developer look at them. Meanwhile, another milestone is reached as a newer version comes out containing some of these bugs. Where is the quality assurance in that? The symptom we have is many bug reports that need additional information. But what is causing this? Could it be that there are too many versions being produced at the same time? (3.6.5 and 4.0.0) Personally, I think LO (perhaps the BOD) needs to look at what is being done and what effects it is having on the product they are making available for downloading. --Dan ___ 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Hi Alex, > > After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of > status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for > lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO > at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for > one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. All open bugs in Base today: 225 Bugs, which are "Unconfimed": 27 Bugs, which are "Needinfo": 26 I don't think that we need automatically way to get these bugs away. Problem of many of these bugs: They couldn't be confirmed by everybody, because there are special configurations with external databases or Mac. What we need: developers, who will work on bugs in Base. There are many bugs "New" and opened since the first version of LO. Robert ___ 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Le 06/02/2013 13:19, Michael Stahl a écrit : > > how many of your bugs are in NEEDINFO state? if the problem is really > developer attention (and i don't doubt that this is the case for many > bugs) then they should not be in NEEDINFO state and you won't get any mails. I was commenting more from the perspective of someone who went through the rigmarole of having many of his bug reports reclassified and the demoralising effect that can have on a contributor. Personally, I have learned to live with it, but that doesn't mean that I think it is a good idea generally. As for my own reports, I understand that developers may not have the time or resources to commit to looking at any given report, but as you say, these are probably mostly not in the NEEDINFO status anyway. Some of the reports which I have filed, confirmed or added myself to, and which are currently in NEEDINFO status (mostly database or printing issues) are due mainly to being unable to test the alleged buggy behaviour on Mac OSX, either because I don't have the corresponding equipment to test with (e.g Brother printers) or OSX's system security privileges preventing me from setting up db servers to test on, whereas these used to work in previous versions of OSX. These particular problems are independent of LO, but that does not mean that the LO bugs per se are invalid (since, at the time the report was filed, the problem did occur). Sweeping them away, even with a "3 strikes and you're out" policy, will still not make them any less valid. Although I might get disgruntled with this approach, and feel helpless to do anything about it, I can live with it (up to a certain point). I'm not convinced that other, more casual bug reporters, would think the same way. Alex ___ 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
On 06/02/13 10:40, Alex Thurgood wrote: > Le 05/02/2013 13:03, Petr Mladek a écrit : > > All, > > After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of > status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for > lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO > at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for > one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. how many of your bugs are in NEEDINFO state? if the problem is really developer attention (and i don't doubt that this is the case for many bugs) then they should not be in NEEDINFO state and you won't get any mails. > IMO, the rationale behind closing bugs in this way, i.e. "let's do it > and if the user/reporter is really motivated he/she is bound to get > back" sends completely the wrong message to the user community at large: > > - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the > project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail; > > - that many of these bug reports are fallacious or fanciful. actually i sometimes do see bugs that don't make any sense to me, and wonder what the heck the reporter's problem is. but i don't remember any of your bugs having this problem :) > While some of them might well fall into the second category, I fear that > many are from people who were incited to use the bug submission > assistant after encountering a troublesome or even serious problem in > their usage of the product and are then expected to get the "community > fervour". The reality of this is that if you make a tool easily > accessible for reporting bugs, then people simply expect that report to > be followed up on by someone else, more knowledgeable. This doesn't mean > that their bug report is any less worthy or relevant just because they > don't then follow-up. a report that says "feature foo doesn't work" without saying in exactly which way feature foo doesn't work is useless and wastes everybody's time trying out feature foo and seeing it work as expected because the reporter didn't write that to see feature foo fail you first have to insert a bar and a quux into your document, click Undo and do all of that with change tracking enabled. ___ 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Alexander Thurgood wrote > - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the > project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail; I don't agree with your interpretation. I believe that someone who bothers to register to bugzilla and to submit a bug report to such an unfriendly interface is indeed interested in reporting and expects that the problem is solved. The problem here is that there are simply not enough people triaging the bugs or fixing them (for a software reportedly used by "60 million users" the number of people contributing is appallingly low...) Sometimes it takes so long for the reports to move from UNCONFIRMED to NEW or NEEDINFO (months sometimes...) and even more for a developer to pick it up (some have been in NEW state for years!!!) that the reporter either found a workaround or gave up on LibreOffice completely So if people do not respond to the feedback request it is because they have lost interest or moved on. If the information in bugzilla is not enough to verify/replicate the bug then it doesn't make sense to keep it. I vote for the 3 strike method previously suggested. 1 month interval between warnings (to make sure that people don't answer because they are on vacation, etc) This is my opinion as an occasional collaborator ;) Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Stagnant-NEEDINFO-bugs-tp4032113p4034827.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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Alex Thurgood píše v St 06. 02. 2013 v 10:40 +0100: > Le 05/02/2013 13:03, Petr Mladek a écrit : > > All, > > After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of > status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for > lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO > at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for > one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. > > IMO, the rationale behind closing bugs in this way, i.e. "let's do it > and if the user/reporter is really motivated he/she is bound to get > back" sends completely the wrong message to the user community at large: > > - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the > project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail; > > - that many of these bug reports are fallacious or fanciful. > > While some of them might well fall into the second category, I fear that > many are from people who were incited to use the bug submission > assistant after encountering a troublesome or even serious problem in > their usage of the product and are then expected to get the "community > fervour". The reality of this is that if you make a tool easily > accessible for reporting bugs, then people simply expect that report to > be followed up on by someone else, more knowledgeable. This doesn't mean > that their bug report is any less worthy or relevant just because they > don't then follow-up. > > To me, the solution being proposed is yet another high-handed way of > "improving the stats" without due regard to those who made the effort in > the first place to submit a report. I understand the point. The question is what is the future of these bugs. Is anyone actively working on them? Is anyone going to work on them? Another solution would be to say that these bugs need triaging. Triagers might schedule these bugs for another review after 1 month in the state NEEDINFO. They might do their best to reproduce the bug and provide the needed information. If they are not able to reproduce it, they might close them as WORKSFORME. The question is if we have resources to do this. AFAIK, triaggers have hard times to sort the good UNCONFIRMED bugs these days. IMHO, this whole discussion is not about statistics but about clean state and resources. We want to have bugzilla in a good state because it makes easier to monitor the state of the product, prioritize, ... Just imagine where we might end after few years. The resources are limited. The question is how to use them optimally and what is better for the product. If triaggers and developers spend more time with poorly reported bugs, it might delay other important bugs and annoy more users in the end. BTW: Users get the product for free. We might expect some contribution from them as well. Anyway, this mostly affect the life of bug triagers. If most triagers are against the mass close, we should not do it. This is why we vote here :-) Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] Stagnant NEEDINFO bugs
Le 05/02/2013 13:03, Petr Mladek a écrit : All, After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for one, will not be interested in this happening yet again. IMO, the rationale behind closing bugs in this way, i.e. "let's do it and if the user/reporter is really motivated he/she is bound to get back" sends completely the wrong message to the user community at large: - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail; - that many of these bug reports are fallacious or fanciful. While some of them might well fall into the second category, I fear that many are from people who were incited to use the bug submission assistant after encountering a troublesome or even serious problem in their usage of the product and are then expected to get the "community fervour". The reality of this is that if you make a tool easily accessible for reporting bugs, then people simply expect that report to be followed up on by someone else, more knowledgeable. This doesn't mean that their bug report is any less worthy or relevant just because they don't then follow-up. To me, the solution being proposed is yet another high-handed way of "improving the stats" without due regard to those who made the effort in the first place to submit a report. Alex ___ 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/
