Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi there, On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 04:57 -0700, bfo wrote: One thing I'd like to do is make a developers' portal - we can use as a homepage, with easy-to-use boxes to lookup bug numbers, and interesting reports on the page: that might be rather a good way of advertising the latest problems :-) There is one already - Bugzilla. I think devs should be teached how to use Bugzilla more. :-) Sure - but a developer's daily interaction involves using many bug trackers - from LibreOffice, to SUSE, RedHat, Deb-bugs, Apache Issues, etc. having a single page that lets you get to them easily can be nice. It is a monster at first sight, but it can be your best pet after a while. Creating multiple resources, like devs portals, special wiki pages etc. won't help. I agree that wiki pages don't help; but having a convenient developer default-page that makes it easy to get to the bugs you want - and also prompts you with the last 5x new regressions, and a competitive component vs. component bug chart and ... - might do some good. No doubt it could all be done in a pile of Javascript or something :-) 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: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Michael Meeks-2 wrote There is one already - Bugzilla. I think devs should be teached how to use Bugzilla more. :-) Sure - but a developer's daily interaction involves using many bug trackers - from LibreOffice, to SUSE, RedHat, Deb-bugs, Apache Issues, etc. having a single page that lets you get to them easily can be nice. Hi. This is another major problem... Michael Meeks-2 wrote I agree that wiki pages don't help; but having a convenient developer default-page that makes it easy to get to the bugs you want - and also prompts you with the last 5x new regressions, and a competitive component vs. component bug chart and ... - might do some good. No doubt it could all be done in a pile of Javascript or something :-) Anyway such dashboard could be done like this: Sample screenshot - http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9753/bugzilladashboard.jpg Tool - http://toolness.github.com/bugzilla-dashboard/#username=[bugzilla.mozilla.org username] All this can be done using Bugzilla integrated APIs (or BzAPI https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:REST_API) with a help of some mediawiki addons - nice examples: http://christian.legnitto.com/blog/2012/04/18/new-mediawiki-bugzilla-feature/ Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4002780.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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi there, On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 09:38 -0700, bfo wrote: Unfortunately those graphs are discouraging in many ways. Especially if one thinks about upgrading LO... Sure - of course I want to get on people's case ;-) we don't show any visibility of the overall number of non-regression bugs that were fixed (introducing a few regressions) and so forth: so it's not a hyper-balanced view. We also count some classes of regression bug (crashers) twice to try to increase focus etc. ;-) We (the ESC) made a strategic decision to take some regressions there - in order to have much greater sharing of the filter code, such that we have less code, and hence our bug fixes have more impact across all Microsoft import and export filters. Does QA OKeyed this decision? What QA actions were taken before such move? QA was involved in the ESC call that made the decision here. Regression tests prepared? Any tests in general? Manual tests? Of course the filters are tested; there were -zero- unit tests for the RTF filter before we started, it is now perhaps -the- most unit tested filter that there is - every bug fix Miklos makes has a nice unit test: better - since the code is shared, that is unit testing a big chunk of the DOCX and perhaps DOC filtering as well. There is testing before committing. Tests as regression tests Tests as in running the code to check that it continues to work - and fixes the bug; done by the developer. Also unit tests are run wherever there are any, if the developer doesn't run them some tinderboxes run the whole test suite as they build. We need to continue to grow that test suite of course. One strategic thing we -badly- need is the ability to get stack traces with full symbols out of QA. With that information we can double or better the productivity of bug fixing - without it we are half-blind. I am starting to doubt that it helps. I recently delivered Windows bt to most crash bugs I could find. Prepared wiki page about it. Asked for review of that page. Wow - I didn't hear about that; can you give me a few links ? did you use a Windows build with debugging symbols (if not the traces would be next-to-useless sadly). Silence. Few of the bugs were fixed, without any comment if my bt was useful. Will keep this work, but I don't see that bugs with bts are fixed quicker. Well; crasher bugs that are windows specific are -incredibly- faster to fix with a good stack trace with symbols. I think I put few cents for this myself on ML and trying to gather nice resources in bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50350. Someone is working on it? Great. It is still UNCONFIRMED... I've assigned it to Fridrich; I agree it is a -really- important task to get this done. Unfortunately there are problems, the Windows symbol server is IIRC some hideous tangled Microsoft proprietary product that requires a Windows server to push a few binary files (que?). This complicates matters. I would be happy if I achieve the change in base workflow - new feature in the codebase? Splendid! But unit tests, testcases and manual testing done before commiting. QA OKeyed the feature? Then you can commit. Stopping people committing until you are happy is unlikely to help - we need a socially acceptable way of improving quality: the best way we've come up with so far is small, fast, reliable, run-all-the-time unit tests that are in-tree. Focusing exclusively on bugs in one of next release (be it 3.7 or 3.8) would be a great idea, as please remember - a feature is a no go, when there are still 123bugs (123bugs as one, two, three actions needed to get LO crash). Is there a good list of such bugs ? AFAICS we need a good way to get nice work (like your bugs with backtraces) communicated to development in such a way that they notice do something about it :-) Not sure how to do that - bloating the MAB list is prolly not it though - creative ideas appreciated. One thing I'd like to do is make a developers' portal - we can use as a homepage, with easy-to-use boxes to lookup bug numbers, and interesting reports on the page: that might be rather a good way of advertising the latest problems :-) 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: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 19:33 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: I can assure you they are. The best way to get a bug solved is: ... Once you are there, it is orders of magnitude easier to go ahead with the bug. Sure - the problem is then for developers to sift out these bugs where a ton of good QA work has been done for them from the larger mass of bugs where a ton of manual work is required first IMHO etc. :-) It must be de-motivating to do a load of work making the bug easier to fix, and then still no-one look at it :-) 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: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Michael Meeks-2 wrote Of course the filters are tested; there were -zero- unit tests for the RTF filter before we started, it is now perhaps -the- most unit tested filter that there is - every bug fix Miklos makes has a nice unit test: better - since the code is shared, that is unit testing a big chunk of the DOCX and perhaps DOC filtering as well. Hi! I noticed that, as I am forced to watch commits to know what is going on in the projects. Good work, should be a part of commit workflow, but IMHO such tests should be placed in the code before importing it to stable branch as a general rule and good coding practice. Michael Meeks-2 wrote Wow - I didn't hear about that; can you give me a few links ? did you use a Windows build with debugging symbols (if not the traces would be next-to-useless sadly). Sure. BTW: if you can make that this page will get a professional review - that would be great. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/How_to_get_a_backtrace_with_WinDbg Michael Meeks-2 wrote Unfortunately there are problems, the Windows symbol server is IIRC some hideous tangled Microsoft proprietary product that requires a Windows server to push a few binary files (que?). This complicates matters. As you can read in the bug resources I gathered Mozilla guys did it, along with Bug reporting stuff. Whoever is working on it can ask those friedly people for help. One should not reinvent the wheel again and again... Michael Meeks-2 wrote Is there a good list of such bugs ? AFAICS we need a good way to get nice work (like your bugs with backtraces) communicated to development in such a way that they notice do something about it :-) Not sure how to do that - bloating the MAB list is prolly not it though - creative ideas appreciated. We should be using Bugzilla and its features - keywords, shared searches, tags, custom fields, flags (per component maybe). Michael Meeks-2 wrote One thing I'd like to do is make a developers' portal - we can use as a homepage, with easy-to-use boxes to lookup bug numbers, and interesting reports on the page: that might be rather a good way of advertising the latest problems :-) There is one already - Bugzilla. I think devs should be teached how to use Bugzilla more. It is a monster at first sight, but it can be your best pet after a while. Creating multiple resources, like devs portals, special wiki pages etc. won't help. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4001184.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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi, Two points to this: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:57:56AM -0700, bfo wrote: I dont think discussing this on a mailing list will help us find the silver bullet to the problems you describe. However, you are most invited to just us on the next QA Call on August, 23rd 2012 1400UTC, discussing these topics on the phone is usually a lot more constructive. Hi. Thanks. I am not available in the working hours and really prefer text than voice. The problem with 'not available in working hours' is something that comes up again and again. Florian Reisinger and Rainer Bielefeld took some initiatve to create 'virtual' QA Weekends over Skype etc. which is awesome, but maybe we need something a little more low key but regular to get things started. I still think something more interactive than the mailing lists would help QA to find an actionable consensus more quickly. A starting point maybe would be a QA chat that would be: - taking place on #libreoffice on IRC/freenode -- this also might help grow the QA community by `dragging in` some users hanging out there - be scheduled outside of (european) workhours (so that those who cannot join the call can join the chat meeting) - as the qa call is biweekly: making this chat meetings biweekly in the alternate weeks (when there is no call). As you might guess, I wont be able to lead such an initiative, but I would support anyone who wants to get this started. Everyone can comment and brainstorm here. Right. And that certainly will be a valuable input in for the discussions on this in the QA calls and -- probably having the most impact on the progress/change of workflows -- the LibreOffice conference. Anyone discussing this here is seriously invited to join the conference. Note that there is travel refunding available, e.g. if you are giving a talk(*). The call for papers ends on August 15th, 2012. Best, Bjoern (*) http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Travel ___ 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
Hi Timur, On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 12:16 +0200, Timur Gadzo wrote: 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. Ah ! sorry, I mis-understood :-) so the generic answer to: when will XYZ bug be fixed ? is that there is basically no answer to that question. That doesn't mean the bug will not be fixed - far from it, but the timing is uncertain. Take for example: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47368 Which is a pet-peeve of mine that I try to spend my spare (what there is of it) time looking into. Unfortunately, finding the underlying cause (almost certainly a memory corruption) is really not easy. Thus far we have few-to-no traces with debug symbols enabled, it is really hard to reproduce the problem, the valgrind runs we try to get hang before we can reproduce the error ;-) etc. etc. When will that bug be fixed ? that's really not clear to me. I would certainly not block any release until that is so - badly as I want it fixed. 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. There is no such page (yet) - I hope one output of Italo's certification initiative would be such a page. However - at the end of the day you need someone with (perhaps a contracted out) ability to actually fix bugs in the product. Although I don't think this can really work like this: pay local partner to fix all those MABs. It seems rather unlikely that commercial users suffer from -all- of the MAB at once :-) one reason that many of them are still open is that (thus far) our customers havn't reported the 3.5 MAB's as issues for them - and (I assume) the same is true for others' customers for whom they provide paid support. Usually, a customer has a few blockers that hold up deployment, and they ask to have these few fixed, and we provide them with a fixed build, and merge the fixes into LibreOffice. 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...? All fixes from the 3.5 branch are already in the 3.6 branch (modulo a small number of subsequent regressions); the way we develop is that we commit fixes to master, and cherry-pick them back to 3.5. Since master turns into 3.6 - it should have all the 3.5 fixes included, currently we cherry-pick fixes from master to 3.5 and 3.6 where appropriate. I hope that helps ! thanks for your hard work in bugzilla, I'm sorry that there are no hard dates for fixing bugs; I'd love to have a magic wand to wave to fix bugs :-) All the best, 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: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi Michael, all, On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:36:27AM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 12:16 +0200, Timur Gadzo wrote: 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. Ah ! sorry, I mis-understood :-) so the generic answer to: when will XYZ bug be fixed ? is that there is basically no answer to that question. That doesn't mean the bug will not be fixed - far from it, but the timing is uncertain. Take for example: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47368 Which is a pet-peeve of mine that I try to spend my spare (what there is of it) time looking into. Unfortunately, finding the underlying cause (almost certainly a memory corruption) is really not easy. Thus far we have few-to-no traces with debug symbols enabled, it is really hard to reproduce the problem, the valgrind runs we try to get hang before we can reproduce the error ;-) etc. etc. When will that bug be fixed ? that's really not clear to me. I would certainly not block any release until that is so - badly as I want it fixed. Still I think a valid concern is raised here: While 'when will XYZ bug be fixed' is indeed not really answerable until it is fixed (or somebody invents a timemachine), the question 'when and how is this issue being addressed by development?' a good one as in it lies the key to motivating the QA team. When the best answer developers can give to those doing bug triage is 'whenever I find spare time' if it is a developers pet peeve or worse if its not that is clearly something we need to improve to keep the QA team in the loop. If we developers are asking the QA team to take care and visiblity of _all_ bugs and not only their pet peeves (which we are as we have no fulltime sponsored QA contributors) -- the same can be expected from the developers (at least from the sponsored full time developers). Now that is in an ideal world we would gladly sacrify our pet peeves for the cold rational progress of the project. In the real world, having fun along the way is an essential goal of the project too: so there is a balance to strike there. So we need to find a way to ensure that both QA and development are confident in sharing the same major goals and priorities. Im working on a proposal towards that, but I am not quite there yet. It seems rather unlikely that commercial users suffer from -all- of the MAB at once :-) one reason that many of them are still open is that (thus far) our customers havn't reported the 3.5 MAB's as issues for them - and (I assume) the same is true for others' customers for whom they provide paid support. Usually, a customer has a few blockers that hold up deployment, and they ask to have these few fixed, and we provide them with a fixed build, and merge the fixes into LibreOffice. I think the commercial users are mostly a red herring here. L3 support is the answer to their problems. But we also need to take care to address the issues that are not primarily hitting commercial users, but average Joe Enduser (e.g. crashes using basic functionality on our own fileformats without using any fancy features). It is unlikely that those will be asked to be fixed by a support contract anyway -- OTOH those might turn away end users (and on their tail commercial users) from considering LibreOffice at all. So: such fundamental functionality needs to be care of by us, otherwise nobody does. Still no magic wand to fix bugs, though(*). ;) Best, Bjoern (*) Apart from the one you already called out: Not letting bugs in in the first place, i.e. QA tester vicously testing master builds. ___ 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
Michael Meeks-2 wrote The reason I graph regressions each week is to try to add focus there; if you can think of another more encouraging way - that'd be appreciated. Hi. Unfortunately those graphs are discouraging in many ways. Especially if one thinks about upgrading LO... Michael Meeks-2 wrote We (the ESC) made a strategic decision to take some regressions there - in order to have much greater sharing of the filter code, such that we have less code, and hence our bug fixes have more impact across all Microsoft import and export filters. Does QA OKeyed this decision? What QA actions were taken before such move? Regression tests prepared? Any tests in general? Manual tests? Michael Meeks-2 wrote There is testing before committing. Tests as regression tests or tests as is it green on tinderbox or it builds on commiter's computer? Michael Meeks-2 wrote One strategic thing we -badly- need is the ability to get stack traces with full symbols out of QA. With that information we can double or better the productivity of bug fixing - without it we are half-blind. I am starting to doubt that it helps. I recently delivered Windows bt to most crash bugs I could find. Prepared wiki page about it. Asked for review of that page. Silence. Few of the bugs were fixed, without any comment if my bt was useful. Will keep this work, but I don't see that bugs with bts are fixed quicker. Michael Meeks-2 wrote Fridrich has been working on getting stack traces / symbol servers setup for Windows for the last several months; he is currently on vacation - no doubt he'll give an update on that when he gets back. It is an enduring frustration to me to be missing that piece. I think I put few cents for this myself on ML and trying to gather nice resources in bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50350. Someone is working on it? Great. It is still UNCONFIRMED... Michael Meeks-2 wrote It's really not clear to me what you're looking for: surely you're not asking for the whole project to stop working on features, and focus exclusively on bugs for a year ;-) that seems an unrealistic expectation to me - we have to move forward as well as fix our huge legacy of bugs, as well as the new bugs we create. I would be happy if I achieve the change in base workflow - new feature in the codebase? Splendid! But unit tests, testcases and manual testing done before commiting. QA OKeyed the feature? Then you can commit. Focusing exclusively on bugs in one of next release (be it 3.7 or 3.8) would be a great idea, as please remember - a feature is a no go, when there are still 123bugs (123bugs as one, two, three actions needed to get LO crash). Also, if I understand correctly, from 3.7 there will be a possibility to introduce working patches from a sister project. It would be great to bury the hatchet and improve both kids at once. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4001009.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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi bfo bfo wrote I would be happy if I achieve the change in base workflow - new feature in the codebase? Splendid! But unit tests, testcases and manual testing done before commiting. QA OKeyed the feature? Then you can commit. As an ex-QA member, I think I should warn you that LO is not that type of managed project. It is a Developer driven project where QA contribution is welcome but it has no weight (or very little) on the succession of events. QA does not okay or stop anything. QA only warns devs if there are show-stoppers. At the pace of releases there is really not much more it can do. Apparently this (time based release) development model works for other OSS, but I believe that is because they must have a much larger QA community... Regards, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4001013.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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:38:21AM -0700, bfo wrote: I am starting to doubt that it helps. I recently delivered Windows bt to most crash bugs I could find. Prepared wiki page about it. Asked for review of that page. Silence. Few of the bugs were fixed, without any comment if my bt was useful. Will keep this work, but I don't see that bugs with bts are fixed quicker. I can assure you they are. The best way to get a bug solved is: - having a reproduction scenario - having a stacktrace - having bibisected the issue Once you are there, it is orders of magnitude easier to go ahead with the bug. Also note that (as implied from other mails in this thread) Rainer, Michael and I are cooking something up to improve the situation -- however we need to find a way ensure that both QA and development feel it will improve the situation. If the volunteer developers on the project feel it overburdening them they will either ignore what we propose or leave, so it has to work for all. By the end of the week we will know more. 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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi Pedro, On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:54:15AM -0700, Pedro wrote: As an ex-QA member, ... Apparently this (time based release) development model works for other OSS, but I believe that is because they must have a much larger QA community... Lets please discuss that constructively: Yes, we need to grow a stronger QA community. How do we get there? Dont tell me development has to do what QA says as that is a nonstarter too. There have to be ways to grow the community without subduing development. Those are the ones we are looking for. And yes, that doesnt preclude improving the interaction between QA and development, but that is something that is tricker to negotiate without either side falling off the cliff. Please trust us to do so at the ESC. 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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Jochen wrote We need a strategy with a positive, encouraging motto for the developers. Hi. Strategy is simple - the time has come to manage bugs better. I could be mistaken, it is still difficult to me to gather informations from all LO resources, but I think that today some QA people are CCing experts asking for a bug fix. I am in doubt that this works. Some kind of Bugfix campaign has to start. Mottos? I am not a marketing expert nor a good gfx artist to prepare posters, but we could use some catchy slogans on wiki pages or mailing to get devs more involved in fixing them. As probably you noticed, I mention Mozilla very, very often in my postings. Well, they have good ideas. Make awful mistakes and have their problems (recent Firefox and Flash situation) but are IMHO better organized and have a big bunch of tooling. Yes, I am aware that Mozilla have their QA full time employees, but dedicated volunteers are not unique. At MozCamp Europe 2011 held in Berlin a campaign for Firefox Mobile testers was present all around the venue (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Testdrivers_Program). Posters (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/6375704453/), stickers were everywhere. I think that LO conference in Berlin is a good opportunity to have Bug squashing draft (this include devs and QA). Examples? I paraphrased few well known slogans to sell this idea (posters, stickers, t-shirts?): Bugs - everyone loses. Help to fix them. Volunteers wanted! Call 999-FIX-BUGS now! Became The king of bugfixing! The bugfixer 14 - come to the sourcecode soon! 100% certified bugfixer We find bugs We fix bugs If you want to impress someone, show him your bugfix list Fix bugs, live better! For the men in charge of bugfixing Bugfixing. I'm lovin it. (R) Bugfixing. Just do it (R) Bugfixing. F* good and tasty! Bugfixing. Does she? Bugfixing. Does he? Bugfixing. Are you? I am with bugfixer I fix, 'cause I can Fix it your way! Reach out and fix something. Find it. Assign it. Fix it. Keep going and going and going... I'm in Resolved Fixed Team. Have you fixed your bug today? Are you Resolved Fixed? Call for bugs (CFB). I think that CFB should be introduced in the release schedule (example http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.6). When to do it and how is another matter. I think that when RC1 is released a CFB should be started and bugfixing planned when RC2 is released (2 weeks are enough?). Bugs should be nominated by QA from ESC stats - regressions and MAB list. Hard code freeze is in next 4 weeks, so the question is - how many bugs can be fixed in 4 weeks? Please remember that today we are talking about 70 MABs and 170 regressions. Branch is in 6 months cycle. So, 10 bugs a week will be enough.. not. Please remember that we still have 2500 bugs to triage. Some minimum should be set by ESC as a goal. Even the open source community have to be managed. To motivate volunteers TDF could join (surprise surprise) Mozilla initiative of Open Badges system (http://www.openbadges.org/en-US/ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges/About http://planet.openbadges.org/). Some LibreOffice badges could be developed, like: - certified LibreOffice user - c. LO developer (builder, gerriter) - c. LO supporter (educator, implementer, translator, templates) - c. QA member (tester, triager, test wrtiter, researcher, bibisecter, moztraper) This can help to build active community and make people proud. Requirements for above should be set. (http://ask.libreoffice.org have their badges - does it work?) All in all the backlog in bugs, regressions and crashers need urgent attention and detailed plan how to get things done. The sooner, the better. When bugs/regressions/crasher situation will be under control, QA could let the devs to rewrite everything. Of course only when testplans, automation and proper code testing procedures are implemented. But that is another matter which should be discussed. Best regards. P.S. Other issues to discuss: - central crash report data system - enable build in crash reporter - detect hot issues - http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/FindTheExpert - experts involvement in CFB - does releasing branch starter with known dataloss regressions (already fixed!) makes sense? - 4 weeks cycle - not too often for proper testing, bug fixing? - beta, rc, master users (numbers, reports) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000667.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:
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi *, Am 10.08.2012 08:27, schrieb Rainer Bielefeld: bfo schrieb: Personally I would declare bankruptcy of this system. IMHO has bfo some right. But: 1) bankruptcy of this system is a little bit exaggerated. 2) Whinging and grouching will not help We need a strategy with a positive, encouraging motto for the developers. Yes. This is a little bit the problem. IMHO a strategy can be to organize initiatives, i.e. calls to work off some lists like [1] for a certain period (e.g. 2-3 weeks). [1] [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?type0-1-0=anywordssubstrlist_id=104273field0-1-0=versionfield0-0-0=blockedquery_format=advancedvalue0-1-0=3.3%20%203.4bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTtype0-0-0=equalsvalue0-0-0=37361product=LibreOffice Regards Jochen ___ 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
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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Jochen wrote IMHO has bfo some right. But: 1) bankruptcy of this system is a little bit exaggerated. Hi! Not at all. After reviewing 400 bugs (and counting) I could double 3.5MAB numbers in an instant. The main problem is that MAB is a battlefield for users without QA control and devs IMHO are in other parts of the LO world (and nobody, I say nobody will ever browse 300 comments bug). Just see 3.5MAB stats in ESC minutes - open bugs vs fixed ratio is unfortunately more or less constant. The same with regressions. 67 in Writer? 177 in whole package? Regressions! Bugs that irritate users most, because they want to use advertised nice new features but they are stuck with old version for good. Does the project do not respect users? One can see it that way... And all that with double/triple code reviews. A joke! Other problem is bugs backlog. 1000 of UNCONFIRMED or NEEDINFO, 2500 NEW bugs! With a rate of ~6 bugs closed daily it is not very encouraging (please remember that some of them are WORKSFORME, INVALID or DUPLICATE bugs). QA should push red button instantly. Luckily there are people who want to triage bugs (including myself). But with those numbers it is a daunting task. Do not forget that after triage we need a lot of people who want to fix them. And to get things worse we are talking here about bugs.freedesktop.org only! There are other Bugzillas where LO bugs are reported (including AOO sister code). Herculean effort is needed at once to get this straight. As you can see there are major topics to discuss urgently. I hope together we can change this situation. And yes, bugs.freedesktop.org Product:LibreOffice is in a state of bankruptcy... Numbers do not lie (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product=LibreOfficedatasets=UNCONFIRMEDdatasets=NEWdatasets=NEEDINFO). Jochen wrote 2) Whinging and grouching will not help We need a strategy with a positive, encouraging motto for the developers. Well, somebody has to start it. I observe this project for few months and I think, that QA voice is weak. I am perplexed reading All good, No problems in ESC QA section and then read regression or MAB stats. Also while triaging bugs, see a few 123crash bugs a week or such discoveries as bug 47466. I will whinge and grouch even more - LO is most crashy application I ever touched in my life. This has to change. QA has to step in. No more changing of splash screens (a lot of problems with that and still bottom text is cutted) or rewriting filters just to introduce 12 regressions. It has to stop. Really. Now. Crashkill, regressionkill, testing before commiting, better code reviews. Insist that code rewrite planned for 4.0 is absurd, when there are dozens of instant crashes in the codebase. Unfortunately devs do not like to fix bugs. That is why I think a strategy should be to nominate bugs for every maintenance release. 10 bugs per release? Ask the people - please, fix those bugs first and then innovate. I can't see that on daily basis, only when some disaster happens like recent regressions or problems with Windows builds or a real real real hard blocker. On the other way - paid support as a first answer for bug fixing is a deadend. Corporate users can count their assets. They are tempted by free software and they expect it just works (interoperates with their customers). When they hear, that paid support is suggested, they start to count very fast. What is better - pay every year 10/50/100$ per user for a support or buy (or lease) other software and it just works with everyone/everything? Or maybe they do not need a software at all with cloud computing here, there and everywhere? It is very tricky situation for software in general... That is all for today. Hope to see some ideas in ESC minutes some day and more QA volunteers. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000474.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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote For some of these bugs simply the Bug description still is not satisfying so that I can understand developers that they pick bugs where they can start fixing with out much additional preliminary research. Hi! Sometimes I am not even sure that devs use Bugzilla and read comments... Anyway they can use NEEDINFO status with a short comment and skip the bug or maybe qawanted keyword for such research request should be introduced. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000483.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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Hi bfo, On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:42:56AM -0700, bfo wrote: ... I dont think discussing this on a mailing list will help us find the silver bullet to the problems you describe. However, you are most invited to just us on the next QA Call on August, 23rd 2012 1400UTC, discussing these topics on the phone is usually a lot more constructive. 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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote I dont think discussing this on a mailing list will help us find the silver bullet to the problems you describe. However, you are most invited to just us on the next QA Call on August, 23rd 2012 1400UTC, discussing these topics on the phone is usually a lot more constructive. Hi. Thanks. I am not available in the working hours and really prefer text than voice. Everyone can comment and brainstorm here. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000495.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] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
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. Personally I would declare bankruptcy of this system. It is a road to nowhere. I'd propose Nominate bug system. As branch will have 6 maintenance releases maybe a bug should have Target version field, where QA would like to see a fix. I know that LO development is Take your bugFix itCommit system, but NominateTakeFixCommit attitude would be a gain. What good are new features, where people are stuck with 3.4.x version because of regressions introduced in constant rewrite of filters without proper testing? Already there are discussions about LO 4.0 with incompatible changes. With all due respect this is insane. I would like to see 3.8 crashkill and 3.9 regressionkill versions before rewriting code in 4.0 (with strict unit tests and regression testing policies). I know that developers do not like to fix bugs (bring), but QA should encourage to fix old problems, even at the cost of new features (new features are cool!!!). Most annoying bugs: - Report wizard Finish button does nothing - Exporting files with hyperlinks in footnotes/endnotes or even a table of content to DOCX was generating corrupted files that other office suites weren't able to open - Exporting (saving) spreadsheet file with cell comments to XLS/XLSX will lose comments Well, because of that (and 3.5MAB) 3.6 is a no go for many, in fact 3.5 in no go for some already. Interesting read is an article about LO adoption in France (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/mimo-working-group-french-ministries-certify-libreoffice-release-0) where MIMO group recommends LibreOffice in 3.3.4 version until September 2012! I am curious which version will be recommended afterwards. They are two branches behind already. Maybe their testing procedures would be good test plans for LO testing in general? Does TDF cooperates with them about it? Their deployment is mentioned in every marketing note recently... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000297.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/
