Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
Hi, Just random thought about the discussion. Please ignore me if it didn't sounds good. How about "discontinued" instead of "abandoned", with some automatic message to describe why it is discontinued. Note that sometimes user just fail and can't find procedure to reproduce on his own. For example, document might fail to open or formatted text might change when saved file reopened. It needs some kind of profession to describe what have been done. Sometimes even developers won't be able to reproduce the issue even he or she see it happen. So I think it is a good idea to blame any side. 2015-11-10 6:11 GMT+08:00 Tommy : > Joel Madero wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID >>> >>> IMHO the time spent to implement this new >>> ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless... >>> >>> in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user >>> so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't >>> provide necessary informations. >>> >> >> To put this in context - this began after several users over the course >> of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status. >> > > > I don't understand why those people should feel irate or offended if the > INVALID state is due to their deficiency to provide a valide testcase or > answers to legitimate QA questions... > > most of the time you got an INVALID tag after 7 months of inactivity... > so, again, no reason to blame QA if you can't answer questions after 7 > months > > I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED >> will make >> them feel better, that's fine. >> > > > anyway, whatever you decide is ok for me. > but I think we are paying too much attention to users who are not giving a > valualble contribution to Bugzilla and LibO in general > > > I really don't care much about feelings of bad bug submitters. > probably most of them would deserve a PEBKAC status :-) > > > This will mostly be used by the automatic >> pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this >> new status. >> >> >> Best, >> Joel >> > > bye, Tommy > > > ___ > LibreOffice mailing list > libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > -- Mark Hung ___ 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
> > > I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID > > IMHO the time spent to implement this new > ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless... > > in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user > so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't > provide necessary informations. To put this in context - this began after several users over the course of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status. I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED will make them feel better, that's fine. This will mostly be used by the automatic pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this new status. 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
Robinson Tryon wrote: Hi all, As mentioned in the ESC call, it could be helpful to add a new Bugzilla Status that encompasses bugs that have been abandoned/don't have enough data. => What type of bugs would this cover? * User isn't willing to share private document with anyone, and we can't reproduce if the user don't wanna share data where we can reproduce his/her bug it's not a valid bug report anonymizing strategies are described in the wiki to hide sensible data so there's no real excuse not to share files. * Bug sits in NEEDINFO status for 6+ months * (other situations?) ... if the user don't wanna provide additional infos after 6 months of waiting this is not a valid bug report... consider that after 6 month you receive a NEEDINFO ping giving you an extra month to give infos before being labeled as INVALID, so that's 7 months of waiting, a timeframe which should be enough to provide a valid answer to many question > => Reasoning: > > * We currently mark abandoned bugs as RESOLVED WORKSFORME, or RESOLVED > INVALID, but an additional Status value could help us be more precise > in indicating why a bug has been set aside. > * An additional Status would allow us to be more diplomatic with tough > users, and avoid the potential negatives of "INVALID" or "WORKS FOR > ME" on such bugs I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID IMHO the time spent to implement this new ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless... in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't provide necessary informations. just my 2 cents ___ 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
Hi Bjoern, On Monday, 2015-11-09 20:15:39 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: > > Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can > > not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one > > time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the > > reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where > > WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the > > given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED > > wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. > > That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and > INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt > and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved > one > and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to > confusion. Hu? No. What I meant is have INSUFFICIENTDATA on the same level as WORKSFORME and INVALID, a status attribute, not a status. So if a bug was in status NEEDINFO for some time and info wasn't provided it can be set to RESOLVED INSUFFICIENTDATA and then closed (we may even think of skipping RESOLVED and directly go to CLOSED instead, as it is no resolution, just closing a bug). Eike -- LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer. GPG key "ID" 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918 630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A Better use 64-bit 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A here is why: https://evil32.com/ Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack signature.asc Description: 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
Hi, On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 09:23:20AM -0800, Joel Madero wrote: > > * ABANDONED > > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) > > * EXPIRED (Launchpad) > > Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned > his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired > indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and > say "this is still a valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some > other such thing). Hmm, yeah. So my preference is EXPIRED followed closely by ABANDONED and last INSUFFICIENT DATA. I already wrote my considerations about INSUFFICIENT DATA in the other subthread. Why do I prefer EXPIRED over ABANDONED? The first is less loaded with emotion, while the latter implies some kind of guilt (at least to me). Thus the latter has a higher chance of provocing the reporter into blame-gaming and trying to prove that WE abondoned the bug and not HE/SHE. Since this is intended for bugs where we assume there wont be any productive data following, I'd think that would be counterproductive. Best, Bjoern N.B.: The launchpad bug states names provoke the reporter early on (NEEDINFO is called "incomplete" which is clearer in calling the reporter into action) and if that doesnt provide results tries to silently kill the issues (bugs get auto-set to "expired" after 90 days of inactivity with a countdown shown as long the bug is in "incomplete". When it happens nobody complains as launchpad already gave those 90 days before and you had it coming.) ___ 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
On 11/09/2015 11:15 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: >> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can >> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one >> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the >> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where >> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the >> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED >> wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. > That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and > INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt > and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved > one > and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to > confusion. I was thinking exactly this and am back to thinking ABANDONED is the best option. We wouldn't go right to ABANDONED. We would go to NEEDINFO - which puts users on notice that we need something, after 6 months, we'd do a follow-up ping saying "hurry up or else..." and then after another month we close as ABANDONED, which seems to describe the situation well. 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: > Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can > not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one > time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the > reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where > WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the > given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED > wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved one and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to confusion. 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Joel Madero wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > >> >> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can >> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one >> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the >> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where >> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the >> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED >> wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. > True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the > rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient > information but it's a start :) I do not care either about the exact wording... the only point I'm looking to improve upon is that 'Works for me' is a cop-out and is bound to put the recipient in a bad mood even a willing and cooperative reporter. I'd like wording that reflect that the bug is not just 'ignored' or the report dismissed, but that it cannot be acted upon, due to a lack of follow up by the reporter or other in position to reproduce, or due to an apparent impossibility to reproduce coupled with a lack of exploitable data from the original report. Yes it won't prevent some of the outburst we see on occasion, but at least it won't feed the beast either. Norbert ___ 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can > not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one > time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the > reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where > WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the > given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED > wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient information but it's a start :) Let's let others speak up and then Robinson can just go with whatever seems to be the consensus. Best, Joel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWQOIxAAoJEAFBJ8aP+xsU7LkH/R1PBNtb6c2zTKTHjTka4n9g fMInqpMKxYogLG5aWV0iztFQuRJuoQ6LGijm9T2tft7gH5EOr86pwtcEyjabPiwy cIZ+2p6IZ84CJIu2cac8k5SM0QWfX6lYlBhJEriVMB2kxIynn1Jd6oKlrL6A3xSG qkpFzTZx5KzLvHlv2Lq7Cb+xpjBg7Kz4iEDAmgO5QPHjLgXmjRox2olxc3gaiwRJ bBTF5byMn1Zncp93LENtphDfITZzTR6gdDxFfB4Ut8N09Syyq9iGtGKUxUOtVZjm 4J1YHbhtTTpw8Q+oTF+UMnGXgU63WkibdHA6ZjdHxJD35IX/Yh9KNCKrc5AzmpM= =eaZ/ -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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
Hi Joel, On Monday, 2015-11-09 09:23:20 -0800, Joel Madero wrote: > > * ABANDONED > > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) > > * EXPIRED (Launchpad) > > Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned > his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED wouldn't fit either, IMHO.. Eike -- LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer. GPG key "ID" 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918 630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A Better use 64-bit 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A here is why: https://evil32.com/ Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack signature.asc Description: 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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
> * ABANDONED > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) > * EXPIRED (Launchpad) Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and say "this is still a valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some other such thing). Couple other points: 1. Please update the wiki when the change happens (both the status wiki as well as the gardening wiki); 2. Please ping me directly so that I update my stuff for the next time I do a mass ping. Seems like a good idea. Thanks for leading it (and for Norbert's original suggestion). 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?
Hi all, As mentioned in the ESC call, it could be helpful to add a new Bugzilla Status that encompasses bugs that have been abandoned/don't have enough data. => What type of bugs would this cover? * User isn't willing to share private document with anyone, and we can't reproduce * Bug sits in NEEDINFO status for 6+ months * (other situations?) => Reasoning: * We currently mark abandoned bugs as RESOLVED WORKSFORME, or RESOLVED INVALID, but an additional Status value could help us be more precise in indicating why a bug has been set aside. * An additional Status would allow us to be more diplomatic with tough users, and avoid the potential negatives of "INVALID" or "WORKS FOR ME" on such bugs => Naming: A couple of names for this status have been offered, however new suggestions are certainly welcome. Here are a few suggestions or status values that are currently in use on other bug trackers: * ABANDONED * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) * EXPIRED (Launchpad) Thoughts on adding a new Status? Suggestions for what name we might use? Please share your thoughts! Thanks, --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/