Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs

[Petr Mladek]

Florian Reisinger píše v Po 20. 08. 2012 v 14:03 +0300:
> hmm, does that really make sense? I am working through, lets say, 20
> LT NEEDINFO bugs.
> 
> Let's say 10% answer (more than this time...): 2 bugs are "saved"...
> AND I wasted my time...

It was not waste of time, definitely. You tried to prepare the bug for
developers, did not have enough information, asked the reporter and
nobody responded 6 months => we could not fix it magically => we wanted
to clearly say that we were not able fix it. This was the last
possibility to move the user from lethargy. It would be even worse if we
did nothing.

=> you saved developers a lot of time. They did not have to deal with
this bug and fixed some other things instead. We really appreciate it.


Best Regards,
Petr



___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi everyone!

__
Florian Reisinger

Von meinem iPad gesendet
Sent via iPad

Am 20.08.2012 um 13:45 schrieb Michael Meeks :

> Hi Alex,
>
> On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 22:14 +0200, Alex Thurgood wrote:
>> My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly
>> schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to sweepingly
>> set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA.
>
>I agree that the situation was -really- non-ideal here; though I
> understand the technical reasons for it.
>
>My expectation is that there will be no more sweeping setting of bugs
> to the NEEDINFO state and closing of them like this. Though of course,
> trawling a (now much smaller) set of NEEDINFO bugs to find those that
> have not been responded to for some long time makes some sense -
> hopefully if that set is small enough it can be done manually (?).

hmm, does that really make sense? I am working through, lets say, 20
LT NEEDINFO bugs.

Let's say 10% answer (more than this time...): 2 bugs are "saved"...
AND I wasted my time...


Current scenario was: 899 bugs were at the status. (The following
argument is also valid for less number of bugs). ~9% responded ~72
bugs. I could check 827 other bugs, like UNCONFIRMED bugs, when I
walked through manually.

>
> [...]
>
>Given our unusual use of the 'version' field, I have no idea how we can
> efficiently detect such bugs; but perhaps there is a plan ? ;-)


I think I have one... We could use the status "pleasetest". Also it
would be politer to set the status to "PLEASETEST" and add something
like "cnb0812" to the whiteboard...


>
>Anyhow - I'm sorry it caused so much grief; thanks for sharing that - I
> assume the experience will lead to deeper thought & discussion in the
> future :-)

We never stop learning ;)



>
>ATB,
>
>Michael.
>
> --
> michael.me...@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs

[Michael Meeks]

Hi Alex,

On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 22:14 +0200, Alex Thurgood wrote:
> My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly 
> schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to sweepingly 
> set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA. 

I agree that the situation was -really- non-ideal here; though I
understand the technical reasons for it.

My expectation is that there will be no more sweeping setting of bugs
to the NEEDINFO state and closing of them like this. Though of course,
trawling a (now much smaller) set of NEEDINFO bugs to find those that
have not been responded to for some long time makes some sense -
hopefully if that set is small enough it can be done manually (?).

Then again - how to handle very old bugs vs. very old versions is
unclear to me; I assume in future we will still need some effective way
to ask reporters to re-test their bug vs. a later version.

Given our unusual use of the 'version' field, I have no idea how we can
efficiently detect such bugs; but perhaps there is a plan ? ;-)

Anyhow - I'm sorry it caused so much grief; thanks for sharing that - I
assume the experience will lead to deeper thought & discussion in the
future :-)

ATB,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

___
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: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

Hi Alex,

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:14:38PM +0200, Alex Thurgood wrote:
> If you look more closely, quite a few of these (I have no stats to
> back me up) were reports that Bjoern had reset in November to
> NEEDINFO when he did his first clean-up off the cuff, by resetting
> declared bugs to the NEEDINFO status. Since many of the OPs at the
> time were unaware what that meant, 

How so? There was a link accompanying that change asking to put the bug back
into status NEW and two links explaining the background.

> My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly
> schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to
> sweepingly set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA.

That these old bugs were moved to NEEDINFO was an one-off artifact of the bugs
having been implicitly confirmed in the old bugzilla, which started the bugs in
NEW, not UNCONFIRMED. 

> In my opinion, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but hey,
> just carry on like that and the world will be well. I know, I'll think I'll
> just wait 3 months and set a load of bugs to NEEDINFO, and then 3 months
> later strike them all out as INVALID - sounds fair ? No, didn't think so.

Actually, closing old, incomplete and inactive bugs is not at all uncommon.
Launchpad for example does that automatically: A bug that is marked incomplete
is closed as "expired" after 90 days.

> (a) ignore the disappointing approach from QA and leave LO to the
> hell it is getting itself into ;
> 
> (b) vociferously tell the LO project to p*ss off (we've had at least
> two or three of those already)
> 
> (c) maybe, just maybe, grit my teeth and reset the issue to
> re-opened, IF, and only IF, I give a damn.
> 
> The statistics you invoke as justification only take account of
> option (c), which is a false assumption of social behaviour.

The question is: Would we as a project better off, if we leave the bugs in
NEEDINFO? Please take a look at:

 
http://skyfromme.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/on-the-importance-of-being-a-bug-confirmer/

and especially the table that is linked in there. The first job of QA -- as
hard as it sounds -- is not to handguide each and every bug reporter along. We
would love to do that, but given our limited resources and being purely
volunteerbased that is simply not the first task of the QA team. The first goal
is to find the most embarassing and urgent bugs and hand them over to the
developers to take care of them. If you look at the table linked in the above
blogpost:

 
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?x_axis_field=resolution&y_axis_field=bug_status&z_axis_field=&query_format=report-table&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=LibreOffice&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=PLEASETEST&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&longdesc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_id=&bug_id_type=anyexact&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&emailtype3=substring&email3=&chfieldvalue=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&format=table&action=wrap

You find there are over 5000 open bugs and >200 of those are assigned to
developers. The first goal of the QA team is to make sure that these bugs are
the most important to address. So QA has to ensure those bugs are of the right:

- quality (good triage and critical bug)
- quantity (Developers should always be aware of the most important bugs to 
work on)

Given that 87 of the assigned bugs have not seen a change in more than 180
days, it is clear that it would not help much to push more bugs in the
direction of development in its current state of operation. So what remains for
QA to do, is to find the most important bugs and from those the ones that are
best triaged: have a reproduction scenario, a pinned down version when the bug
appeared, a bibisect. Given the limited resources the team currently has and
5000 open bugs, we have to focus on those bugs -- and they are unlikely to be
found in those bugs in state NEEDINFO for 6 months. _If_ they are, they
hopefully will get reopened quickly.

> Sorry for what appears to be a rant, but this whole sordid affair
> has left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth, it was bad enough
> the first time around, and now this comes as the icing on the cake.

Yes, we should have learned from the first bulk change, and the execution on
this one was quite a bit unfortunate. The next time this should:

- be announced on _all_ the relevant list a 1-2 weeks before it happens
- on the planet with a blogpost
- best be two-staged:
  - first comment on the bug: If this bug does not receive the requested
information (or confirmation by another contributor) it will get closed in 
14 days
  - then close those that still are untouched 14 days later

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs

[Alex Thurgood]

On 19/08/2012 19:20, Florian Reisinger wrote:

__




Now, most of them have not answered --> Closed
If they answer --> Reopen + check


If you look more closely, quite a few of these (I have no stats to back 
me up) were reports that Bjoern had reset in November to NEEDINFO when 
he did his first clean-up off the cuff, by resetting declared bugs to 
the NEEDINFO status. Since many of the OPs at the time were unaware what 
that meant, it is hardly surprising, IMO, that they then remained 
untreated/unresponded for so long. I, for one, fell foul of this 
"sleight of hand", and forgot the many issues that I had opened (under a 
different e-mail address at the time), that Florian so broad-handedly 
then disqualified.


My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly 
schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to sweepingly 
set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA. In my opinion, you 
have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but hey, just carry on 
like that and the world will be well. I know, I'll think I'll just wait 
3 months and set a load of bugs to NEEDINFO, and then 3 months later 
strike them all out as INVALID - sounds fair ? No, didn't think so.


The reasoning that says "the stats go to show...", sorry, I don't buy 
it, it doesn't take into account the negative impact that the first bug 
clean sweep had on the OPs, and certainly not the second one. If I were 
an OP and saw what happened, I'd likely have one of the following 
reactions :


(a) ignore the disappointing approach from QA and leave LO to the hell 
it is getting itself into ;


(b) vociferously tell the LO project to p*ss off (we've had at least two 
or three of those already)


(c) maybe, just maybe, grit my teeth and reset the issue to re-opened, 
IF, and only IF, I give a damn.


The statistics you invoke as justification only take account of option 
(c), which is a false assumption of social behaviour.



Sorry for what appears to be a rant, but this whole sordid affair has 
left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth, it was bad enough the 
first time around, and now this comes as the icing on the cake. Well, if 
that's how the project wants to play, so be it, but I'm a hair's breadth 
away from walking away from it. What has been played out here is clearly 
an attempt to alleviate a perceived lack of control of increasing bug 
count within the project. It might not have been planned that way, but 
that is how it looks to the outside and casual bug reporter. And then we 
have the gall to say that we need more people for QA - come on, who are 
we kidding if we act like that ?



My motivation for staying is directly linked to the usage I have on a 
professional level of the software with regard to databases. If mine, 
and others, bug reports can be swept under the carpet and then be told 
that all we have to do is reactivate them if we're not happy, well, I'd 
 be inclined to tell you all to take a running jump too. If I want 
hassle, I can go outside and pick a fight at the local pub, or for a 
quieter life, I can switch to competing software not a million miles away.


We are paying the ransom of our own success, and that ransom should 
avoid alienating those who made our software popular, the casual user 
with a problem.



OK, I've said enough.

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] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs

[Florian Reisinger]

__
Florian Reisinger

Von meinem iPad gesendet
Sent via iPad

Am 19.08.2012 um 20:12 schrieb Jochen :

> Hi Florian,
>



> I don´t understand [1]
> See [2]: there are alone 7 bugreports witht status "NEEDINFO"

All of these bugs were in NEEDINFO status for 6 months +
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrap&cumulate=1&height=350&longdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugs&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&product=LibreOffice&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&resolution=INVALID&resolution=WONTFIX&resolution=DUPLICATE&resolution=WORKSFORME&resolution=MOVED&resolution=NOTABUG&resolution=NOTOURBUG&width=700&x_labels_vertical=1&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=PLEASETEST&list_id=110234

Now, most of them have not answered --> Closed
If they answer --> Reopen + check


__
Florian Reisinger

Von meinem iPad gesendet
Sent via iPad



>
> [1] 
> 
>
> [2] 
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=---&query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEEDINFO&component=Database&product=LibreOffice&list_id=110217
>
> Regards
>
> Jochen
>
>  Original-Nachricht 
> Betreff: Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs
> Datum: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:08:55 +0300
> Von: Florian Reisinger 
> An: Jochen 
>
> Hi Jochen!
>
> __
> Florian Reisinger
>
> Von meinem iPad gesendet
> Sent via iPad
>
> Am 19.08.2012 um 20:00 schrieb Jochen :
>
>> Hi Florian,
>>
>> is my conclusion right?
>>
>> One week ago there are 899 bugreports with status "NEEDINFO" and today there 
>> are only 9 bugreports with status "NEEDINFO"?
>
> Yes, because there was no answer for 6 months+
> see the table online:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?bug_file_loc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_id=&bug_id_type=anyexact&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=PLEASETEST&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cumulate=1&email1=&email2=&email3=&emailassigned_to1=1&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype1=substring&emailtype2=substring&emailtype3=substring&field0-0-0=noop&keywords=&keywords_type=allwords&longdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugs&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&product=LibreOffice&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&resolution=INVALID&resolution=WONTFIX&resolution=DUPLICATE&resolution=WORKSFORME&resolution=MOVED&resolution=NOTABUG&resolution=NOTOURBUG&short_desc=&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&type0-0-0=noop&value0
> -0-0=&x_axis_field=bug_status&x_labels_vertical=1&y_axis_field=&z_axis_field=&width=700&height=350&action=wrap&format=table
>
> PS: Only 11% answered, that is why there are that much "RESOLVED INVALID"...
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>>
>> Am 19.08.2012 18:53, schrieb Florian Reisinger:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by
>>> bugzilla):
>>>
>>> In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...)
>>>
>>> (...) useless
>>>
>>>
>>> __
>>> Florian Reisinger
>>>
>>> Von meinem iPad gesendet
>>> Sent via iPad
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>> Problem

[Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: Re: Closing NEEDINFO bugs

[Jochen]

Hi Florian,

I don´t understand [1]
See [2]: there are alone 7 bugreports witht status "NEEDINFO"

[1] 
 



[2] 
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?resolution=---&query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEEDINFO&component=Database&product=LibreOffice&list_id=110217


Regards

Jochen

 Original-Nachricht 
Betreff: Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Closing NEEDINFO bugs
Datum: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:08:55 +0300
Von: Florian Reisinger 
An: Jochen 

Hi Jochen!

__
Florian Reisinger

Von meinem iPad gesendet
Sent via iPad

Am 19.08.2012 um 20:00 schrieb Jochen :


Hi Florian,

is my conclusion right?

One week ago there are 899 bugreports with status "NEEDINFO" and today there are only 9 
bugreports with status "NEEDINFO"?


Yes, because there was no answer for 6 months+
see the table online:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?bug_file_loc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_id=&bug_id_type=anyexact&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=PLEASETEST&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cumulate=1&email1=&email2=&email3=&emailassigned_to1=1&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype1=substring&emailtype2=substring&emailtype3=substring&field0-0-0=noop&keywords=&keywords_type=allwords&longdesc=Due%20to%20the%20fact%2C%20that%20there%20are%20a%20lot%20of%20NEEDINFO%20bugs&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&product=LibreOffice&resolution=---&resolution=FIXED&resolution=INVALID&resolution=WONTFIX&resolution=DUPLICATE&resolution=WORKSFORME&resolution=MOVED&resolution=NOTABUG&resolution=NOTOURBUG&short_desc=&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&type0-0-0=noop&value0
-0-0=&x_axis_field=bug_status&x_labels_vertical=1&y_axis_field=&z_axis_field=&width=700&height=350&action=wrap&format=table

PS: Only 11% answered, that is why there are that much "RESOLVED INVALID"...



Regards

Jochen


Am 19.08.2012 18:53, schrieb Florian Reisinger:

Hi!

About one week ago, I did a mass change, here is pre-final statistic (by
bugzilla):

In fact, it was a good choice... (I hope you can read this table...)

(...) useless


__
Florian Reisinger

Von meinem iPad gesendet
Sent via iPad


___
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/






___
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/