Re: [Libreoffice-qa] QA and QA Analyst - from Timur

[Timur Gadzo]

Hello Florian and others

Let me point out what matters. It's not that simple that I'm "one of
many applicants that's unhappy because a single one is selected". It's
that I was alrady doing the majority of items for years prior to
selection topping in QA reports and still someone else was chosen
*without explanation* to me as a candidate and long time volunteer and
TDF Member.

1. Are there some written rules and principles for hiring in TDF?
Maybe it's on the web but I coudn't find. That question is also
releveant for tdf-members list but all here are also Members.
I understand that "fundamental principle of TDF is a community"  - if
so, why would a vacancy be published "urbi et orbi" if there are
already TDF Members doing exact work or very similar to job
description for years?

2. TDF body took decision and I didn't insist on the name until
public, but I politely asked for clarification "what were my
shortcomings that overturned my years long work, and consequently what
were the crucial advantages of the chosen candidate". First in the
call then in 2 direct mails listing some data, then repeated in 3rd
public email. *Never got any explanation.*
What's said is general and not an answer (many applicants, TDF must
make decision, others will be unhappy, appreciate what you did but we
had our (secret) reasons and aspects ..) So really no point in
reapeating the same.
I don't know why it was a problem to explain. If it was my
shortcomings, nicely in private communication as I asked.

3. If I had 10x (ten times) more contribution in reported and triaged
bugs and bibisects etc than chosen candidate (although his work was
considerable), what does it mean for a principle of volunteering and
community? As I wrote, conclusion could be "do some but do not do
much". IMO it's detrimental to basic principle of volunteering and TDF
how I understood it before.

So this is not about the chosen candidate, it's about me and TDF
values. Maybe it's all legal in "a charitable Foundation under German
law", don't know, but I don't think it's correct.

Regards
Timur

[Libreoffice-qa] QA and QA Analyst - from Timur

[Timur Gadzo]

Hello fellow QAers

Along my LO time, I saw many folks coming and some disapearring
(wondering why). Now I was faced with that, I decided to send this
message, to explain why it makes no sense for me to be in QA team
anymore (1).

I was OO user and casual bug reporter since 2005, and then LO user and
reporter and increasingly tester for 10+ years now, by nick of Timur.
Reporting some hundreds of bugs, but testing much more. I always tried
to make a bug clear, retesting and closing or duplicating, renaming,
hiding excessive comments. Doing bibisects or more of them in the
single bug, with all bibi repos and torments with old versions, using
different scripts for automated bibisects. For that I had 2 Windows
and 3 Linux with some specific settings as different UI, dark mode,
e-mail sending, domain, proxy etc. Sometimes I'd add to wiki. I didn't
advertise my work or single bugs in chat/Telegam, I just worked more.
Last few years I increased my work so that took me 4 hours/workday, 20
hours/week.

Then I saw a vacancy for QA Analyst (2) and applied because I mostly
was doing all that already, save reporting. During the next few months
I worked on this full 8 hours/day to see how it looks with 40
hours/week. Doing so I finally amounted to 6434 bugs I gave some input
to. Although I was regularly in QA reports with my 4 hours, in
September I really topped (3).

Later I learned I wasn't selected which came as a shock just because
of this objectively available input and reports. I wasn't informed who
was, I first thought it may be someone who also had a great QA work,
like Julien or Rafael or Raal, those who I could also see all the time
in reports and Bugzilla while not being part of TDF or companies, like
Justin or MIke etc.
I asked for something that could be helpful to me: what were my
shortcomings that overturned my years long work, and consequently what
were the crucial advantages of the chosen candidate. To add an insult
to the injury, I got no explanation although I asked the same twice.
I'm especially disappointed that Xisco didn't respond in any way,
after so many years.

Recently I learned who was selected for the position of QA Analyst,
someone by nick of stragu. Seems that he was active in LO for years,
with input to some 735 bugs by the time of selection. While it's
considerable, it's not near my devotion and input nor it was in the
1st tier of LO QA. Unless there were some other values in selection. I
don't doubt that selected candidate can achieve expected level, but he
simply wasn't there at the time of selection, as seen in the previous
and the most recent report (4).

Lesson learned in the harder way is that it's approximately of the
same value in TDF to triage 100, 735, 6.434 or 16.434 bugs. For later
volunteer can spend years and detriment personal life but it's only
appreciated by word, not really advised. Instead, after some hundred/s
of bugs, it's better to go on with personal development/growth as
listed in (5).
Since this was not correct to me, it makes no sense to go on doing the
work that someone is now chosen for.

(1) https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Team
(2) 
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2022/07/22/join-the-libreoffice-team-as-a-quality-assurance-analyst-m-f-d-40h-per-week-remote/
(3) 
https://qa.blog.documentfoundation.org/2022/10/11/qa-dev-report-september-2022/
(4) 
https://qa.blog.documentfoundation.org/2022/11/10/qa-dev-report-october-2022/
(5) https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/GetInvolved

Regards
Timur

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting agenda - Adding topic: Broken release process when fresh become still and when still become EOL'ed

[Timur Gadzo]

On Thursday, January 28, 2021, Florian Effenberger <
flo...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> William Gathoye (LibreOffice) wrote on 27.01.21 at 18:22:
>
>> Right now: 6.4 is EOL'ed[4] but it is still advertised on the website
while the update service is redirecting users of 6.4 to the 7.0 version.
>
> I think it is intentional that we always do have two parallel versions
available for download, but it's something that might change as we are
looking into the rolling release system, which makes this differentiation
obsolete.
>

Hi

Still has a purpose, many users (me also) are using Still.last. So we need
6.4 to be on the webpage, until we get 7.0.last.
This proposal not only missed the point and failed to consider diverse
needs of others, but it's over zealous in a detrimental way.

I'm reading about rolling release idea, and I find it awful. It just popped
up, not sure why. Yes, it's more simple to publish, but it would ruin LO
usability.

LO is regression plagued product.
Some serious regressions may take months to be resolved, if ever. So with
Still we still have a half-decent suite (other half are all those
unresolved regressions).

To me, who's in QA and following thousands of bugs, this looks like making
new problems, because the most important ones (regressions and 10 years old
bugs) are harder to deal with.

If it's working, don't change that, rather fix what's not working.

Regards
Timur
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Removal of Spam Account

[Timur Gadzo]

It's done already. It's manual and tedious now.

I always wonder if it takes a script or new Bugzilla version to have a
single button for BZ admins.
And some more, like "see all reports by that commenter", "see all commits
by that dev".

Buovjaga, you follow BZ, is there any chance ?

Regards


On Wednesday, November 18, 2020, Kevin Suo  wrote:
> Could someone please remove account matthewgrac...@gmail.com from our
bugzilla, as he is continuously posting spam url links:
>
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_activity.cgi?id=81957
>
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] infographic about bugs fixing for 2018 year

[Timur Gadzo]

Hi

Thank you for your offer.
I guess Xisco will prepare QA report for 2018., ss discussed before,
so you may use that. Address  is
https://qa.blog.documentfoundation.org/category/reports/.

Out of total number of fixed bugs it's important to know the part for
regressions because the rest is a real improvement.
"Changed" is not relevant date field because it means that ticket is
updated then, not fixed or closed.

Regards
Timur, Bosnia and Herzegovina


On 1/7/19, Radwan Hallak  wrote:
> Hi all
> i want make infographic about bugs fixing in 2018 year,
> i am designer and i work in inkscape very well
>
> *infographic will contain:*
> - total number of bugs have been fixed in 2018.
> - top contributors of bugs fixing in 2018
> - top bugs reporters in 2018 with nomber of bugs
> - number of bugs fixed by LibreOffice version. like
> 4.0 (25 bugs)
> 5.0 (250 bugs)
> 6.0 (600 bugs)
> - number of bugs fixed by reporting date or bugs age
> 20 bugs (reported in 2011) or (reported in 7 years ago)
> 35 bugs (reported in 2012) or (reported in 6 years ago)
> 150 bugs  (reported in 2018) or (less than 1 year ago)
>
> *i want use this search results to get infographic information: *
> *https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&chfieldfrom=2018-01-01&chfieldto=Now&component=Android%20Viewer&component=Base&component=BASIC&component=Calc&component=Chart&component=ci-infra&component=contrib&component=deletionRequest&component=Documentation&component=Draw&component=Extensions&component=filters%20and%20storage&component=Formula%20Editor&component=framework&component=graphics%20stack&component=Impress&component=Installation&component=iOS&component=LibreOffice&component=Linguistic&component=Localization&component=Printing%20and%20PDF%20export&component=sdk&component=UI&component=ux-advise&component=Writer&component=Writer%20Web&component=WWW&limit=0&order=changeddate%2Cbug_status%2Cpriority%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_id&product=LibreOffice&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED
> *
>
> Do you have any recommendations or suggestions?
> thank you
> Radwan, Syria
>
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Weekly QA Report (W49-2018)

[Timur Gadzo]

Hello
Nice reports.

I hope you'll prepare yearly report for 2018 including also an
evolution for total number of open bugs and closed bugs.

QA blog page is narrow, it should be broadened. At least to the width
of blog.documentfoundation.org.

Best wishes in 2019.
Timur
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Call for help: Untouched bugs pinged more than once

[Timur Gadzo]

Hi

Bug 57418 is on the list because last 3 messages were from
qa-ad...@libreoffice.org.
So not some malware, simply bugs without feedback.


On 8/14/17, Xisco Fauli  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Today I modified this script [1] to check those bugs pinged more than
> once with this message[2] and I've found 569 bugs have been pinged 2
> times in a row and 37 bugs 3 times in a row without any human being
> interaction.
>
> I'm sharing with you the links to the list of bugs in case you feel like
> retesting some of them to check whether they have been fixed in the
> meantime or not.
>
> - Bugs pinged 2 times in a row:
>
> - http://tinyurl.com/y7mtqftf
>
> - http://tinyurl.com/y6vy94hb
>
> - Bugs pinged 3 times in a row:
>
> - http://tinyurl.com/y74tkoo3
>
> it would be nice to put those lists down to 0 at some point...
>
> Regards
>
> [1]
> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/dev-tools/tree/esc-reporting/qa-tools.py
>
> [2]
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Gardening#Bugs_untouched_for_a_year:_Stock_Message
>
> --
> Xisco Faulí
> Libreoffice QA Team
> IRC: x1sc0
>
>
> ___
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
> Change settings:
> https://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/
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Meta bug telegram group

[Timur Gadzo]

Hello all

I'm confused with all those Meta bugs. Looks like there are so many of
them that I wonder how that can help. I wasn't here on the list so I
don't know if that's explained somewhere.
In my view, we don't need them like that, and similar bugs can be
found by search.

Meta should gather hot and annoying bugs, like old cut-copy-paste
bugs, or recent distorted fonts, or speed issues from 5.3 or something
that helps finding the underlying issue.
Something that goes beyond "dataLoss" and "perf" keywords.

Regards
Timur
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] LO 3.7 enhancements

[Timur Gadzo]

Hello

I'm writing this message as a reaction to comment from Mikeyy on Bug
54157 - LibreOffice 3.7 most annoying bugs. He asked for Bug 36815 -
Advanced printing capabilities of comments in Writer [PRINTING].
As it's often said, MAB is no place for discussions and no place to
ask for enhancements. Now in MAB 3.7 theres is very nice instruction
saying "For details, criteria and further instructions, please see
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Most_Annoying_Bugs";.
But, I'm myself interested in new features in LO. There is a page
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Vote_for_Enhancement. Bug 36815 is
there, as well as Bug 34355 - Use margins to track changes and some
others. There is even
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Enterprises_nice-to-have
but I think is redundant. I think that old OpenOffice voting system
was nice and simple.
So, a question for QA: Do these pages influence some decisions? Are
they still relevant? There should be some explanation.

Regards
Timur Gadzo
___
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: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements

[Timur Gadzo]

> On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 15:27 +0200, Timur Gadzo wrote:
>> I find that there should be an explanation in MAB 3.6. when exactly
>> will fixes for bugs resolved in "LibreOffice 3.5 most annoying bugs"
>> be included in LO 3.6.
>
>   Right; that's not clear. Personally I prefer a rather shorter, more
> motivating and easy-to-read list of serious blockers myself; so I like
> the current state :-)

I'm asking for EXPLANATION in the first post when will FIXES for bugs
resolved in MAB 3.5 be included in LO 3.6 CODE.
Adding unresolved bugs from MAB 3.5 to MAB 3.6 is another issue.


>> The point is: a corporate user who wants to use 3.6 only when it has
>> all those fixed bugs in the code should now when to use it.
>> "[tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 .."
>> says "More conservative users should stick with LibreOffice 3.5.". It
>> should be explained until when.
>
>   Sure - so a corporate user should be paying for L3 support via a local
> partner - so they can have whatever bugs they want fixed when they want
> them fixed :-)

Can you please point me to the list of local partners and an
explanation of support layers? I didn't see it on the page.
Although I don't think this can really work like this: pay local
partner to fix all those MABs.


Timur_LOL wrote
> It is clear that at the beginning bugs list should contain only bugs
> which are *new* in LibreOffice 3.6, but at some time, while some fixes
> from MAB 3.5 are integrated in the code, there is a decision on what
> to do with the remaining unfixed bugs from a branch (3.5).
>
Hi.
It is not a big surprise that 3.5MAB has already 3.4MAB bugs imported. Now,
most of them will become 3.6MAB, which is ridiculous.

I compared MAB 3.4 and MAB 3.5. Some bugs are on both lists. That's
not really consistent.
Bug36547 (DUPLICATE of Bug33591, which is FIXED, Whiteboard:
target:3.6.0 target:3.5.3)   Bug37024 (FIXED, Whiteboard: target:3.4.5
target:3.5.1 target:3.6.0beta0)   Bug37561 (FIXED, Whiteboard: )
Bug40482 (FIXED, Whiteboard: target:3.4.5 target:3.5.0beta3
target:3.6.0beta0)Bug43867 (FIXED, Whiteboard: BSA)  Bug45078
(DUPLICATE of Bug40289, which is NEW)
I will delete Bug36547, add Bug33591, delete Bug45078, add Bug40289 in MAB 3.5.

Some bugs have Whiteboard filled, while others don't. Reiner informed
me that since some months developers use a script what will
automatically add the target function to the whiteboard when the fix
will be committed to the code. In early times that had to be added
manually, what was not very reliable. Even today sometimes the
developer makes a mistake and so the target info might be missing. I
think it should be updated at least for those MAB 3.5. So, if a bug in
MAB 3.5 has "Whiteboard: target:3.5.x" does it mean it's already in
3.6 branch?

Finaly, I understand that there are bugs. I just want to switch to LO
3.6 only when all fixes from 3.5 branch are added to 3.6 branch, if I
put it correctly. Is it already done with 3.6.0, or it will be done
with 3.6.1, or...?
___
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: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements

[Timur Gadzo]

Hello

I find that there should be an explanation in MAB 3.6. when exactly
will fixes for bugs resolved in "LibreOffice 3.5 most annoying bugs"
be included in LO 3.6.
It is clear that at the beginning bugs list should contain only bugs
which are *new* in LibreOffice 3.6, but at some time, while some fixes
from MAB 3.5 are integrated in the code, there is a decision on what
to do with the remaining unfixed bugs from a branch (3.5).

The point is: a corporate user who wants to use 3.6 only when it has
all those fixed bugs in the code should now when to use it.
"[tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 .."
says "More conservative users should stick with LibreOffice 3.5.". It
should be explained until when.
Is it at some specific version, or when a line reaches Recommended
part of  3.6 at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LibOReleaseLifecycle.png?

Regards
Timur Gadzo


-- Forwarded message --
From: Florian Effenberger 
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:24:47 +0200
Subject: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice
3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
To: annou...@documentfoundation.org

The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new
features and improvements

Berlin, August 8, 2012 - The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice
3.6, the fourth major release of the best free office suite ever, which
provides a large number of new features and incremental improvement over
the previous versions. Innovations range from invisible features such as
improved performance and interoperability to the more visible ones such
as user interface tweaks, where theming has improved to more closely
match current design best-practice. A full list with screenshots is
available here:
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/3-6-new-features-and-fixes, because
a picture says more than a thousand words.

Wherever you look you see improvements: a new CorelDRAW importer,
integration with Alfresco via the CMIS protocol and limited SharePoint
integration, color-scales and data-bars in spreadsheet cells, PDF export
watermarking, improved auto-format function for tables in text
documents,, high quality image scaling, Microsoft SmartArt import for
text documents, and improved CSV handling. In addition, there is a lot
of contributions from the design team: a cleaner look, especially on
Windows PCs, beautiful new presentation master pages, and a new splash
screen.

LibreOffice is becoming increasingly popular in corporate environments.
During the last months, several large public bodies have announced their
migration to the free office suite: the Capital Region of Denmark, the
cities of Limerick in Ireland, Grygov in the Czech Republic, Las Palmas
in Spain, the City of Largo in Florida, the municipality of
Pilea-Hortiatis in Greece, and the Public Library System of Chicago.

Dave Richards of the City of Largo has commented about the new release
on his blog: "I have been testing LibreOffice 3.6 and am happy to see
the progress. At this time all of our showstoppers are fixed and we
probably will upgrade almost immediately when it's released. Nice work.
CMIS is shaping up nicely. I'll be looking at 3.7 when it appears in the
daily builds".

In France, the MIMO Working Group - the ministries of Agriculture,
Culture and Communication, Defence, Education, Energy, Finance Interior
and Justice - with a total of 500.000 end users, has certified
LibreOffice for deployment on every desktop. At the same time, the OSB
Alliance joined the efforts of German and Swiss cities and communities
sponsoring development on the LibreOffice codebase.

Corporate users are joining consumers who quickly switched to
LibreOffice. Giorgio Buccellati, Professor Emeritus of History and Near
Eastern Languages at UCLA (University of California at Los Angeles),
says: "LibreOffice is wonderful software. I am an avid user of the
Hybrid PDF feature, which allows to exchange PDF files with all other
users while preserving the possibility of editing the same document like
a native file".

LibreOffice 3.6 has been developed by the growing community of hackers
gathered around The Document Foundation, thanks to a friendly and
welcoming environment, and the compelling Free Software ethos. The
community has surpassed the threshold of five hundred developers
providing new features and patches since the announcement of the project
on September 28, 2010.

According to Ohloh, LibreOffice is the third largest developer community
focusing on free software applications, after Google Chrome and Mozilla
Firefox, and the largest to be independent from a single corporate
sponsor. This result has been achieved in less than two years, and is
now a benchmark for free software projects.

The Document Foundation invites power users, able to help iron out any
final wrinkles, to read the release notes carefully, install LibreOffice
3.6.0, and rep