Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hi, On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:57:52PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: This is a general problem that I think we shoudl just talk a bit about. If we confirm a bug on 4.1 but it's fixed in 4.2 master - what status is appropriate? Usually WFM is good but it's hard to tell a user so it'll be broken for the foreseeable future but by 4.2 release you'll be good to go So, if we use bugzilla as intended, a bug that is fixed, but not in a released version yet should be RESOLVED/FIXED. Once that the release containing the fix is out it should go to CLOSED/FIXED. Note the same happens on launchpad, albeit with better named bugstates: Fix Committed (aka RESOLVED) and Fix Released (aka CLOSED). As we have the target:4.0.4 whitespace status, doing the RESOLVED-CLOSED mass transition with a The fix has been release with LibreOffice 4.0.4, closing. comment on release shouldnt be too much of a manpower issue. The question is: Do we want this spam? One can argue this is really positive spam, as it says Your bug is fixed and a official version with the fix is available. ... 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hi, Am 19.06.2013 um 12:09 schrieb Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com The question is: Do we want this spam? One can argue this is really positive spam, as it says Your bug is fixed and a official version with the fix is available. ... I would not consider thuis as spam at all :) Best, Bjoern Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger ___ 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/ ___ 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: So, if we use bugzilla as intended, a bug that is fixed, but not in a released version yet should be RESOLVED/FIXED. Once that the release containing the fix is out it should go to CLOSED/FIXED. Note the same happens on launchpad, albeit with better named bugstates: Fix Committed (aka RESOLVED) and Fix Released (aka CLOSED). Sounds like a great improvement to the strings in Bugzilla. Can we buy Tollef a fruit basket or a nice dinner or something? It would be very helpful if we could start to chew through our long list of tweaks... As we have the target:4.0.4 whitespace status, doing the RESOLVED-CLOSED mass transition with a The fix has been release with LibreOffice 4.0.4, closing. comment on release shouldnt be too much of a manpower issue. The question is: Do we want this spam? One can argue this is really positive spam, as it says Your bug is fixed and a official version with the fix is available. ... +1 If someone files a bug, I think it's reasonable for us to send them at least two emails regarding the fix: 1) When a fix has been committed (so that they can test it, if they like) 2) When a fix has made it into a shipping release Why are we so hesitant about sending out emails on bug-status-change? Is it because the entire cc list gets pinged, not just OP? --R ___ 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:43:34AM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: So, if we use bugzilla as intended, a bug that is fixed, but not in a released version yet should be RESOLVED/FIXED. Once that the release containing the fix is out it should go to CLOSED/FIXED. Note the same happens on launchpad, albeit with better named bugstates: Fix Committed (aka RESOLVED) and Fix Released (aka CLOSED). Sounds like a great improvement to the strings in Bugzilla. Can we buy Tollef a fruit basket or a nice dinner or something? It would be very helpful if we could start to chew through our long list of tweaks... I guess, renaming bugstates is something we should have our own bugzilla for. Also note that even with the launchpad bug state names, people sometimes get it wrong -- although less so. Why are we so hesitant about sending out emails on bug-status-change? Is it because the entire cc list gets pinged, not just OP? Essentially yes. Its a change of workflow and http://xkcd.com/1172/ applies. 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hm, just one thing is missing. In this case we know it's fixed but have no idea what patch fixed it - as far as I know everyone marks these as WFM in general and only marks as FIXED if we know what commit fixed the issue. Am I missing something here? Warm Regards, Joel On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:43:34AM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: So, if we use bugzilla as intended, a bug that is fixed, but not in a released version yet should be RESOLVED/FIXED. Once that the release containing the fix is out it should go to CLOSED/FIXED. Note the same happens on launchpad, albeit with better named bugstates: Fix Committed (aka RESOLVED) and Fix Released (aka CLOSED). Sounds like a great improvement to the strings in Bugzilla. Can we buy Tollef a fruit basket or a nice dinner or something? It would be very helpful if we could start to chew through our long list of tweaks... I guess, renaming bugstates is something we should have our own bugzilla for. Also note that even with the launchpad bug state names, people sometimes get it wrong -- although less so. Why are we so hesitant about sending out emails on bug-status-change? Is it because the entire cc list gets pinged, not just OP? Essentially yes. Its a change of workflow and http://xkcd.com/1172/applies. Best, Bjoern -- *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.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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hi, On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 08:13:36AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: Hm, just one thing is missing. In this case we know it's fixed but have no idea what patch fixed it - as far as I know everyone marks these as WFM in general and only marks as FIXED if we know what commit fixed the issue. Well: FIXED/WORKSFORME is the resolution, while RESOLVED/FIXED is the state, thus: - RESOLVED/FIXED: fixed by commit, unreleased - RESOLVED/WORKSFORME: bug not reproducable anymore, no commit known, unreleased - CLOSED/FIXED: fixed by commit, released - CLOSED/WORKSFORME: bug not reproducable anymore, no commit known, released 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 08:13:36AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: Hm, just one thing is missing. In this case we know it's fixed but have no idea what patch fixed it - as far as I know everyone marks these as WFM in general and only marks as FIXED if we know what commit fixed the issue. Well: FIXED/WORKSFORME is the resolution, while RESOLVED/FIXED is the state, thus: - RESOLVED/FIXED: fixed by commit, unreleased - RESOLVED/WORKSFORME: bug not reproducable anymore, no commit known, unreleased - CLOSED/FIXED: fixed by commit, released - CLOSED/WORKSFORME: bug not reproducable anymore, no commit known, released +1 to all that. I hate having to tell a user you'll have it in 4.2 when it's released when 4.1 RC isn't even released yetbut that's life sometimes. Thanks for clarification. Best, 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.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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
I think we need to be more stricter, if the bug is in a published version in LibreOffice download page, like is the case, and if it is not fixed at least for the last published version, it can not be considered as fixed. Miguel Ángel. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Fixed-in-4-2-branch-broken-in-4-1-daily-status-thoughts-tp4061558p4061563.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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hi All, This is a general problem that I think we shoudl just talk a bit about. If we confirm a bug on 4.1 but it's fixed in 4.2 master - what status is appropriate? Usually WFM is good but it's hard to tell a user so it'll be broken for the foreseeable future but by 4.2 release you'll be good to go The bug in question isn't major at all (fdo#65550) but looking for opinions. Tracking down the appropriate patch could take a lot of time so the option is: 1. New - try to track down patch but acknowledge that this takes us away from other tasks 2. WFM - with a note to user that in a few months it'll be fixed for you 3 .?? Best, 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.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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hi Joel jmadero wrote This is a general problem that I think we shoudl just talk a bit about. If we confirm a bug on 4.1 but it's fixed in 4.2 master - what status is appropriate? Usually WFM is good but it's hard to tell a user so it'll be broken for the foreseeable future but by 4.2 release you'll be good to go The bug in question isn't major at all (fdo#65550) but looking for opinions. IMO the triager should ask the dev who submitted the patch if he can be back-port and cherry pick the patch to the branch that is going to be released sooner (especially if it is a regression). If you don't know who fixed it, then maybe ask the ESC... If it can't be backported, close the bug as FIXED RESOLVED with a final comment like Fixed in Branch 4.2 I assume that WFM means Works for me (you do have the bad habit of using acronyms ;) ). I disagree on using Works for me. As a Bug submitter that is the WORST answer I can get. It means in plain language That's your problem because it's working fine on my end In the particular case of this bug that will only be fixed in 4.2 (i.e. 6 months from now) if this was a critical problem for the user it would mean he would give up on LO (maybe return after 6 months... probably not...). So I really think that Devs need to make an effort to submit bug fixes to master and simultaneously cherry pick to the soonest to be released branch. Just my 2 cents ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Fixed-in-4-2-branch-broken-in-4-1-daily-status-thoughts-tp4061558p4061562.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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
jmadero wrote This is a general problem that I think we shoudl just talk a bit about. If we confirm a bug on 4.1 but it's fixed in 4.2 master - what status is appropriate? Joel, As the support tail continues to stretch us thin, performing QA bug triage and commenting Works for Me (noting specific build details of course) really does seem the correct action for issues against earlier releases but that are proven functional in current developmental builds. I see it as in the best interest of moving the project along on all fronts. I really think the more useful QA action, as you attempted, is to assist the original poster, and any collaborating reporters, to test that fixes available in daily builds of master (currently 4.2.0.0alpha0+), or of the daily master of pending releases (currently 4.0.5.0, or 4.1.0.0 beta2+), does actually fix the bug for them and to document so in Bugzilla or to otherwise facilitate involvement of the devs. While we can't ask every user to start using the latest daily build--for specific issues we should expect a user originating an issue to do so--and thereby allow our QA process to verify the fixes pushed out by devs are valid. Even if there is no probability the patch will be backported to an earlier release. The reporting user then having seen that it works, can decide if the newer build is more useful to their needs. Also keep in mind that the devs may mark a bug Resolved Fixed but then annotate a Whiteboard target value for it, e.g. target:4.0.5, target:4.1.1, for a 4.0.3.3 bug they've fixed but that won't be pushed down to 4.0.4. As active QA participants I see nothing wrong in reading that annotation and then telling a user so it'll be broken for the foreseeable future but by 4.2 release you'll be good to go if that is the way the dev sees it. But, if we find it to be a really serious issue, we can elevate the importance, or add it to MAB for the affected release and solicit ESC discussion. I don't believe these normal QA actions are that off putting to those users that actively track issues they've reported. The process does meet expectations of users and developers who both need the feedback. I see my role in QA as facilitating the flow of detailed information in both directions. Stuart -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Fixed-in-4-2-branch-broken-in-4-1-daily-status-thoughts-tp4061558p4061572.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/
