Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Building or bibisecting

2015-12-01 Thread Terrence Enger
I quite often do bibisect, most often from the daily dbgutil repository for
Linux, but going to older versions as needed.  I have, just for the fun of
it, cloned the Windows bibisect repository, and it seems to be good; however
it covers such a narrow range of commits that I seldom think of using it.

I do occasionally do a local build, but not very often:  the build takes
about 30 hours, thirty very warm hours.  Of course, my system falls well
short of the minimum recommended specs.

HTH,
Terry.




--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Building-or-bibisecting-tp4167915p4168007.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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Pedro
jmadero wrote
> On 12/01/2015 09:03 AM, Sophie wrote:
>> What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed
>> for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I
>> think also that a long list of version is confusing.

I think the problem here is that a compromise is not possible. 

It is absurd that the version list has 115 items !!!

LibreOffice_versions.ods
  

LibreOffice/TDF absolutely needs a user friendly Bug Submission Assistant
where users can report bugs they found in the stable releases of the live
branches (currently 4.4, 5.0 and 5.1). This would reduce the list to less
than 15 options...

The Bugzilla site has to be completely separate from this. Which user has
the patience (and knowledge) to register to a user unfriendly site with 115
options for a single variable, where several he doesn't even understand
their meaning?
Bugzilla is for QA and advanced users. There you can have all versions (I
would still exclude alphas, betas and rcs except for the latest version in
each live branch and exclude All versions) 


jmadero wrote
> I just wonder in terms of # of versions - how many are we talking about?
> 3-5 versions removed 2-3 months earlier? Given there area lot of
> versionsI'm just not sure if we'll see real gains from the proposal
> and there is a real possibility for loss.

Changing the period by months would not make a significant change...

However removing all alphas, betas and rcs except for the latest version in
each live branch and exclude All versions would reduce the list by nearly
one third (35/115). I think it's pretty impressive.

Again how many bugs are reported for the alpha, beta and rc stage for a
previous branch/version which are specific to that stage? How many are we
talking about?

I think need to improve the experience both for QA and (especially) for
users reporting bugs.

Regards,
Pedro



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bugzila-4-3-x-versions-cleanup-tp4167758p4168006.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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Joel Madero


On 12/01/2015 03:19 PM, Pedro wrote:
> jmadero wrote
>> On 12/01/2015 09:03 AM, Sophie wrote:
>>> What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed
>>> for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I
>>> think also that a long list of version is confusing.
> I think the problem here is that a compromise is not possible. 
>
> It is absurd that the version list has 115 items !!!
>
> LibreOffice_versions.ods
>  
>  
>
> LibreOffice/TDF absolutely needs a user friendly Bug Submission Assistant
> where users can report bugs they found in the stable releases of the live
> branches (currently 4.4, 5.0 and 5.1). This would reduce the list to less
> than 15 options...
So . . . I think this is a completely separate issue and one that
perhaps we can discuss tendering somethingif I worked with you on
this front could you compromise and agree that bugzilla can stay as is
with current policies in place?


Best,
Joel
___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Pedro
jmadero wrote
>> LibreOffice/TDF absolutely needs a user friendly Bug Submission Assistant
>> where users can report bugs they found in the stable releases of the live
>> branches (currently 4.4, 5.0 and 5.1). This would reduce the list to less
>> than 15 options...
> So . . . I think this is a completely separate issue and one that
> perhaps we can discuss tendering somethingif I worked with you on
> this front could you compromise and agree that bugzilla can stay as is
> with current policies in place?

I will gladly work on such a proposal. However the bugzilla modifications
were not my idea, they were from Tommy. I just said I agreed that there are
too many versions. In any case I don't see how my opinion can affect the
current policies. I'm just a user, I'm not even a QA member.

Regards,
Pedro



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bugzila-4-3-x-versions-cleanup-tp4167758p4168015.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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Joel Madero


On 12/01/2015 09:03 AM, Sophie wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> Le 01/12/2015 17:53, Joel Madero a écrit :
>>
>>
> Tommy's proposal was to simplify BZ approach on a user point of view. It
> is intimidating to go further when you're not sure what version you are
> using, and RC, beta are not clear things for users.
> What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed
> for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I
> think also that a long list of version is confusing.
> I'm not doing enough QA currently to have a firm opinion on Tommy's
> proposal, but I understand his request to shorten the 6 month period in
> this way.

I just wonder in terms of # of versions - how many are we talking about?
3-5 versions removed 2-3 months earlier? Given there area lot of
versionsI'm just not sure if we'll see real gains from the proposal
and there is a real possibility for loss.

Best,
Joel
___
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] Building or bibisecting

2015-12-01 Thread Joel Madero


On 12/01/2015 08:52 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> I don't bibisect - one of the reasons being that last time I tried,
> bibisecting on OSX required one to go through the pain of Gatekeeper
> every *** time you start LO

(08:57:21 AM) shm_get_: *jmadero 1/ you can turn off gatekeeper while
you are doing the bisection. 2/ right-click open also allow to bypass
gatekeeper when opening stuff in a gui env*

___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Joel Madero


On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote:
> Hi Joel
>
>
> jmadero wrote
>>> If a user is able to tell that a bug was introduced between 4.0.0 and
>>> 4.0.1,
>>> a bibisect in that range should be able to find the problematic
>>> commit/patch?
>>> What would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2,
>>> RC1, etc?
>> Bibisect is really only at this point useful for Linux because the
>> documentation on OSX and Windows is still below par. That's at least my
>> understanding - have you tried to bibisect on other platforms?
> No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a
> hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible.
>
> Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1,
> Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
> Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?
The benefit is narrowing it down by hundreds of commitshave you ever
looked at how many commits are between two alphas? Or between two point
releases? If we're sitting here screaming and yelling about regressions,
the more we narrow down the more likely regressions will be dealt with.

Example (commits between...):
5.0.0.1 beta1 and 5.0.0.5 release: 357
5.0.0.3 and 5.0.0.4 beta2: 42

As far as "all the footwork be on QA side" - yes.because all the
development work is on the developer side (it's not like they are asking
us to code.). It's our job to narrow down the issue as much as
possible (down to a single commit is best obviously) and then developers
can take over and do their magic with the code (that is almost always
way above my head).

This debate is going in circles - if no one else agrees with me then go
ahead (Tommy has permissions), just make sure to document it somewhere.
I'd give it a couple more weeks to see if someone else has additional
thoughts. My thought is that if a user is so super confused based on a
few extra versions thenwell then there bug reports are likely to be
bad anyways (it's not a high bar to understand versions).

@Tommy - I suggest clarifying what the proposal is at this time as you
and Pedro have deviated substantially.

Best,
Joel

___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Joel Madero


On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote:
> No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a
> hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible.
>
> Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1,
> Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
> Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?

At least some developers agree with me btw - "precision is good" and
"lowering to the lowest common denominator doesn't seem ideal." Again,
certain developers have complained about QA tinkering without thinking
about the repercussions. Just because you can't see the benefits to
precision does not mean there aren't any.

Just food for thought as we debate changing things *once again*. Do we
actually know for a fact that users are getting confused by having a few
extra versions listed? Or are we just assuming (or it's a corner case
with a couple users complaining?) and in response we want to yet again
modify bugzilla versions?

*sighs*


Best,
Joel
___
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] Building or bibisecting

2015-12-01 Thread Alexander Thurgood
Le 01/12/2015 15:56, Sophie a écrit :

Hi Sophie,


> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to know who here is frequently building LibreOffice or is
> bibisecting on a regular basis?
> You can either answer on the list or directly to me if you prefer.
> Thanks a lot in advance for your feedback

I try and build once a day on Mac from master, with personalized autogen
input parameters (with-lang=fr, disable-firebird-sdbc,
enable-ext-mariadb-connector, and some other extensions).

BTW, I noticed a few untranslated menu entries in my 5.1 alpha the other
day, before 5.1 rc branch-off.

I don't bibisect - one of the reasons being that last time I tried,
bibisecting on OSX required one to go through the pain of Gatekeeper
every *** time you start LO, the other being that bibisect support
is/was incomplete for anything earlier than 4.1.


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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Sophie
Hi Joel,
Le 01/12/2015 17:53, Joel Madero a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote:
>> No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a
>> hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible.
>>
>> Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1,
>> Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
>> Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?
> 
> At least some developers agree with me btw - "precision is good" and
> "lowering to the lowest common denominator doesn't seem ideal." Again,
> certain developers have complained about QA tinkering without thinking
> about the repercussions. Just because you can't see the benefits to
> precision does not mean there aren't any.
> 
> Just food for thought as we debate changing things *once again*. Do we
> actually know for a fact that users are getting confused by having a few
> extra versions listed? Or are we just assuming (or it's a corner case
> with a couple users complaining?) and in response we want to yet again
> modify bugzilla versions?

Tommy's proposal was to simplify BZ approach on a user point of view. It
is intimidating to go further when you're not sure what version you are
using, and RC, beta are not clear things for users.
What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed
for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I
think also that a long list of version is confusing.
I'm not doing enough QA currently to have a firm opinion on Tommy's
proposal, but I understand his request to shorten the 6 month period in
this way.

Cheers
Sophie

-- 
Sophie Gautier sophie.gaut...@documentfoundation.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation
___
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] QA meeting tomorrow?

2015-12-01 Thread Sophie
Hi all,

Is there a QA meeting planed tomorrow and at what time will it be?
Thanks!
Cheers
Sophie
-- 
Sophie Gautier sophie.gaut...@documentfoundation.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation
___
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 5.0.4 RC1 test builds available

2015-12-01 Thread Christian Lohmaier
Hello all,

For the upcoming version 5.0.4 the builds for RC1 are now available on
pre-releases.

It is a build in release-configuration, meaning that it will update a
previous version of LibreOffice on Windows.
Linux and Mac users can install alongside LibreOffice 4.4

For the complete schedule., see
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/5.0#5.0.4_release

Grab the builds from here here:
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/

The list of fixed bugs relative to 5.0.3 final (rc2) is here:
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/bugs-libreoffice-5-0-4-release-5.0.4.1.log

Testing against the areas touched and the bugs fixed since the last
tag is greatly appreciated, as it helps us to confirm the stability of
this build.

Thanks a lot for your help!
Christian
___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Christian Lohmaier
Hi Joel,

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Joel Madero  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote:
>> Hi Joel
>>
>>
>> jmadero wrote
 If a user is able to tell that a bug was introduced between 4.0.0 and
 4.0.1,
 a bibisect in that range should be able to find the problematic
 commit/patch?
 What would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2,
 RC1, etc?
>>> Bibisect is really only at this point useful for Linux because the
>>> documentation on OSX and Windows is still below par. That's at least my
>>> understanding - have you tried to bibisect on other platforms?
>> No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a
>> hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible.
>>
>> Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1,
>> Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
>> Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?
> The benefit is narrowing it down by hundreds of commitshave you ever
> looked at how many commits are between two alphas? Or between two point
> releases? If we're sitting here screaming and yelling about regressions,
> the more we narrow down the more likely regressions will be dealt with.
>
> Example (commits between...):
> 5.0.0.1 beta1 and 5.0.0.5 release: 357

you mixed nomenclature here it seems.
$ git log --oneline libreoffice-5.0.0.0.beta1..libreoffice-5.0.0.5 |wc -l
815

so 815 commits between 5.0.0 beta1 and 5.0.0 final

357 is the commit count between first RC and final
$ git log --oneline libreoffice-5.0.0.0.beta1..libreoffice-5.0.0.5 |wc -l
815

x.y.z.0… → LibreOfficeDev (alpha and beta),
x.y.z.1… → first RC, in release mode (LibreOffice)

> 5.0.0.3 and 5.0.0.4 beta2: 42

between rc3 and rc4

As long as the merge-to-one-version indicates what version was set
prior to the unification, I  don't see the information loss, but it
should be a standardized comment, so that you could still use queries
for those versions.

ciao
Christian
___
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] [ANN] LibreOffice 5.1.0 beta1 test builds available

2015-12-01 Thread Christian Lohmaier
Hi *,

for the upcoming new version 5.1.0, the builds for beta1 are now
available on pre-releases.

5.1.0 is scheduled to be released beginning of February

While the build is made available in all supported languages and
translation templates were updated, translations may still be incomplete.

See

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/5.1#5.1.0_release

for the complete schedule.

Grab the builds from here here:

 http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/

The list of fixed bugs relative to 5.1.0 alpha1 is here:

http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/bugs-libreoffice-5-1-release-5.1.0.0.beta1-buildfix1.log

So playing with the areas touched there also greatly appreciated  -
and validation that those bugs are really fixed.

Thanks a lot for your help,
Christian
___
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] [ANN] LibreOffice 4.4.7 rc2 test builds available

2015-12-01 Thread Christian Lohmaier
Hi *,

for the upcoming new version 4.4.7 the builds for RC2 are now
available on pre-releases.

It is a build in release-configuration, meaning that it will update a
previous version of LibreOffice on Windows.
Linux and Mac users can install alongside LibreOffice 5.0

See

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/4.4#4.4.7_release

for the complete schedule.

Grab the builds from here:

 http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/

The list of fixed bugs relative to 4.4.7 rc1 is here:

http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/src/bugs-libreoffice-4-4-7-release-4.4.7.2.log

So playing with the areas touched there also greatly appreciated  -
and validation that those bugs are really fixed.

Thanks a lot for your help,
Christian
___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Joel Madero


On 12/01/2015 10:16 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>
> 5.0.0.3 and 5.0.0.4 beta2: 42
> between rc3 and rc4
>
> As long as the merge-to-one-version indicates what version was set
> prior to the unification, I  don't see the information loss, but it
> should be a standardized comment, so that you could still use queries
> for those versions.
Ah I see the confusion here. I'm talking about cases where _after the
merge happens_ we are asking users to go back and download archived
versions to try to narrow down where their regression was introduced. I
agree that if the version was already set to begin with then it's not a
big deal, but after the merge happens, if we're asking users to "narrow
down the regression 'as much as possible'" but then we are taking away
their ability to actually set the version...that seems like a problem
and pretty confusing.

This is why the 6 month rule IMHO makes sense. This gives QA 6 months to
triage the bug, try to determine if it's a regression, and try to get
users to assist as much as possible by narrowing down the version to the
most precise possible (absent bibisecting/bisecting). After 6 months it
probably is a lot less likely that the user would care enough to test
the bug against older versions so it makes sense to purge at this point.
2-3 months turnaround is IMHO too short when it can take 60 days just to
triage the bug (before there is a single touch by QA).

Best,
Joel
___
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] LibreOffice 5.0.4 RC1 test builds available

2015-12-01 Thread Robert Großkopf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Christian,
> 
> For the upcoming version 5.0.4 the builds for RC1 are now available
> on pre-releases.
> 
> It is a build in release-configuration, meaning that it will update
> a previous version of LibreOffice on Windows. Linux and Mac users
> can install alongside LibreOffice 4.4
> 
> For the complete schedule., see 
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/5.0#5.0.4_release
> 
> Grab the builds from here here: 
> http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/

Can't find this one here. (Linux rpm 64bit)

Regards

Robert

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=OdCm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Joel Madero


>
> I will gladly work on such a proposal. However the bugzilla modifications
> were not my idea, they were from Tommy. I just said I agreed that there are
> too many versions. In any case I don't see how my opinion can affect the
> current policies. I'm just a user, I'm not even a QA member.
Don't be modest. You're a part of the team. And I know Tommy suggested
the change to begin with but you seemed to have stronger feelings about
going farther than Tommy's proposal :) But, if you can wait a couple
weeks I'll have a little time and we can try to draft something :) It'll
be a proposal to request funds (maybe through the grant request form).
I'll think about the best way to proceed.

Best,
Joel
___
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] QA meeting tomorrow?

2015-12-01 Thread Robinson Tryon
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Sophie  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a QA meeting planed tomorrow and at what time will it be?

Hi Sophie,
Yes, there'll be a QA Meeting tomorrow. Agenda/Pending Action Items here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2015/December_02

Handy-dandy meeting time link is here:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=13=00=0=02=12=2015

Best,
--R


-- 
Robinson Tryon
QA Engineer - The Document Foundation
LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald
qu...@libreoffice.org
802-379-9482 | IRC: colonelqubit on Freenode
___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

2015-12-01 Thread Pedro
Hi Joel


jmadero wrote
>> If a user is able to tell that a bug was introduced between 4.0.0 and
>> 4.0.1,
>> a bibisect in that range should be able to find the problematic
>> commit/patch?
>> What would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2,
>> RC1, etc?
> 
> Bibisect is really only at this point useful for Linux because the
> documentation on OSX and Windows is still below par. That's at least my
> understanding - have you tried to bibisect on other platforms?

No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a
hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible.

Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1,
Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?

Regards,
Pedro



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bugzila-4-3-x-versions-cleanup-tp4167758p4167899.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] Building or bibisecting

2015-12-01 Thread Lera
Hi Sophie,

В письме от 1 декабря 2015 15:56:35 пользователь Sophie написал:
> I would like to know who here is frequently building LibreOffice or is
> bibisecting on a regular basis?
I build LO about one or two times a week. But I do not  bibisect.

Best regards,
Lera
___
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] Building or bibisecting

2015-12-01 Thread V Stuart Foote
Sophi, *

Build on Linux but only when patching.

Routinely bisect against my archive of daily pulls of Windows TBs.

I don't run a bibisect git repo (though I probably should invest in setting
up the Windows flavor since we seem short there).

Stuart



--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Building-or-bibisecting-tp4167915p4167917.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/

[Libreoffice-qa] Building or bibisecting

2015-12-01 Thread Sophie
Hi all,

I would like to know who here is frequently building LibreOffice or is
bibisecting on a regular basis?
You can either answer on the list or directly to me if you prefer.
Thanks a lot in advance for your feedback
Cheers
Sophie
-- 
Sophie Gautier sophie.gaut...@documentfoundation.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation
___
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/