[libreoffice-projects] Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)

2014-04-21 Thread Bjoern Michaelsen
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:43:43PM -0400, Terrence Enger wrote:
 From the QA meeting minutes:
 
  (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla
  (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a
  similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic)

Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable.
- Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a
  standardized vocabulary
- Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one
  topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as
  Terrence shows here ;) )
- Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How
  does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker?

Best,

Bjoern

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: projects+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/projects/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



[libreoffice-projects] Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)

2014-04-21 Thread Terrence Enger
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 23:57 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
 On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:43:43PM -0400, Terrence Enger wrote:
  From the QA meeting minutes:
  
   (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla
   (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a
   similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic)
 
 Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable.
 - Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a
   standardized vocabulary

Absolutely right.  In fact, we should not even mention it to a new
reporter until the need arises.

 - Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one
   topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as
   Terrence shows here ;) )

Triagers would be the first to apply standardized vocabulary.
Subject, of course, to us wanting not to discourage people who a just
not interested in vocabulary.  The goal is to be able to ignore
uninteresting bugs more efficiently.

 - Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How
   does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker?

I see the primary user being a triager (or maybe a reporter) looking
for duplicates.

sky colorblue
  Developers do not matter, because we (QA) are going to do such a
  good job that no developer ever has to look at a bug she is not
  interested in and which is ready for her attention.
/sky  

Hey, I admit that that is blue sky.  How far can we expect to
advance toward that?  How much value is there in the
yet-to-be-demonstrated incomplete result?  I do not know, but the
sheer number of words I am writing suggests the improbability of a
good result.  Sigh.

Perhaps the detail page for a bug should have a button meaning I am a
developer, and I have looked at this bug, and I am sorry that I spent
my time this way.  Well, a buttopn plus the opportunity to say what
enticed him to go there is the first place.


HTH,
Terry.



-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: projects+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/projects/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted