Robert Großkopf píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 19:52 +0100:
Hi *,
+ https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52571
+ BASE VBA DELETE COLUMN OR TABLE DOESN'T CHANGE THE SURFACE
+ minimalistic report = hard to understand
+ 5 months ago asked for more details and no answer
Florian Reisinger píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 16:36 +0100:
71,43% NO INPUT
28,57% SHOULD BE REVIEWED
I think what might be a globally acceptable solution for our problem:
+ 20%-30% of wrongly closed bugs is relatively high number. It
is realistic. I think that it corresponds
Hi Petr, all,
Thanks for your long mail...
Am 08.02.2013 um 16:56 schrieb Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz:
Florian Reisinger píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 16:36 +0100:
71,43% NO INPUT
28,57% SHOULD BE REVIEWED
I think what might be a globally acceptable solution for our problem:
+ 20%-30% of
Alex Thurgood píše v St 06. 02. 2013 v 14:09 +0100:
Le 06/02/2013 13:19, Michael Stahl a écrit :
how many of your bugs are in NEEDINFO state? if the problem is really
developer attention (and i don't doubt that this is the case for many
bugs) then they should not be in NEEDINFO state
Le 07/02/2013 13:32, Petr Mladek a écrit :
Hi Petr,
I am confused. Are these bugs in NEEDINFO just because nobody found time
to confirm them? If this is true, they should be in the state
UNCONFIRMED.
The bugs should be in the state NEEDINFO only when they can't be
reproduced because an
Alex Thurgood píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 14:17 +0100:
Le 07/02/2013 13:32, Petr Mladek a écrit :
Hi Petr,
I am confused. Are these bugs in NEEDINFO just because nobody found time
to confirm them? If this is true, they should be in the state
UNCONFIRMED.
The bugs should be in the
Hi,
I do something similar with my kill list [1]
Am 07.02.2013 15:31, schrieb Petr Mladek:
Alex Thurgood píše v Čt 07. 02. 2013 v 14:17 +0100:
Le 07/02/2013 13:32, Petr Mladek a écrit :
[...]
Do you have other opinion, feeling, or experience, please?
Best Regards,
Petr
I took 7 bugs out
Hi *,
+ https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52571
+ BASE VBA DELETE COLUMN OR TABLE DOESN'T CHANGE THE SURFACE
+ minimalistic report = hard to understand
+ 5 months ago asked for more details and no answer
+ 2 months ago pinged
= should get closed
Hi Petr,
Also you could pay someone to work on a certain bug. There is a growing
list of certified developers which are capable of doing such things.
These are well spend money because they improve the product and motivate
people working on LO.
Don't know, if you know, to whom you are
Alex Thurgood píše v St 06. 02. 2013 v 10:40 +0100:
Le 05/02/2013 13:03, Petr Mladek a écrit :
All,
After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of
status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for
lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those
Le 06/02/2013 13:19, Michael Stahl a écrit :
how many of your bugs are in NEEDINFO state? if the problem is really
developer attention (and i don't doubt that this is the case for many
bugs) then they should not be in NEEDINFO state and you won't get any mails.
I was commenting more from
Hi Alex,
After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of
status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for
lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO
at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for
On 02/06/2013 09:50 AM, Robert Großkopf wrote:
Hi Alex,
After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of
status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for
lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO
at the time (OSX bugs,
After suffering from the last two mass closure / re-initialisations of
status of a fair number of bugs I had spent time in opening, but for
lack of a dedicated developer / interest in those particular areas of LO
at the time (OSX bugs, Base bugs) they never got any attention, I for
Hi,
I am going to vote on all open questions. It might speed up the voting
process :-)
Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 09:11 -0800:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
My understanding is that we want to proceed and close the
bugs.
Rainer Bielefeld píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 19:23 +0100:
Hi all,
I had the plan to write down some thoughts concerning your plans to do
an other mass close, but I wasn't in the mood to do that. Due to my
experience with bug wrangling in general and similar actions we did in
LibO Bugzilla,
30 days should be enough. If nobody answered withing this time frame,
there is only small chance that she would answer later without pinging.
+1
None. IMHO, it is enough and it reduces the traffic.
+1, I think the developers will appreciate this as well
30 days sounds fine here as well.
+1
This is in response to Rainer's hesitation. I think there are three
solid reasons why this should be done and how it would help, one is for
QA side, one is for the project as a whole and one is for general
accuracy of FDO:
1) For QA side, if we make this a standard policy then when we push
Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800:
Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this
week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss
of thoughts that didn't pan out ;)
To be honest, I am a bit confused by the different opinions.
My
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800:
Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea to ESC this
week if possible. Don't want this to die and fade away into the abyss
of thoughts that didn't pan out
Hi all,
I had the plan to write down some thoughts concerning your plans to do
an other mass close, but I wasn't in the mood to do that. Due to my
experience with bug wrangling in general and similar actions we did in
LibO Bugzilla, for my personal work I only expect (smaller)
Hi, so I seem to state out my opinion first...
Am 04.02.2013 um 18:11 schrieb Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote:
Joel Madero píše v Po 04. 02. 2013 v 08:00 -0800:
Do we have a consensus on this? I'd like to pitch our idea
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 07:09 +0100, Florian Reisinger wrote:
Am 28.01.2013 14:13, schrieb Petr Mladek:
Strike 2 After 7 Days:
Query for all Bugs for what mails have been sent in Strike 1:
- Changed since mail (probably by reporter): QA will take care
- NOT changed: Mass close via
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 07:51 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Petr Mladek schrieb:
IMHO, the most important is to give
user chance to answer before the first warning (30 days or so).
Hi Petr,
I don't think so. My experience is that the reporter normally will
answer within 3 days
://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Stagnant-NEEDINFO-bugs-tp4032113p4032870.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
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 13:20 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Pedro schrieb:
I think that is extremely rude. It reminds me of my Graduation diploma
which was not ready for 3 years and then I received a postcard saying I had
10 days to pick it up...
Hi,
no, we will not leave open a
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 13:43 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
I) Such an action should avoid collateral damages as effective as
possible. A promising approach might be to find an effective query with
good accuracy for hopeless Bug reports where we can expect that there
will be no useful
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 15:06 -0800, Joel Madero wrote:
On 01/26/2013 02:48 PM, Jack Leigh wrote:
c) a reminder + automated closing of bug after some period of time
+1 Something like automated closing after 3 months in NEEDINFO
Response: From developer side, they'll see a MASSIVE influx of
Petr Mladek schrieb:
This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal
level of mails if we do this regularly.
Hi,
That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same.
Only the number of mails per cleanup will be smaller.
BTW, I dislike the noise the
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:05 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Petr Mladek schrieb:
This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal
level of mails if we do this regularly.
Hi,
That's an illusion, total number of mails will always be the the same.
Only the number of
Le 2013-01-28 08:13, Petr Mladek a écrit :
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:05 +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
Petr Mladek schrieb:
This will cause many mails only in the first round. It will be normal
level of mails if we do this regularly.
Hi,
That's an illusion, total number of mails will always
that someone from QA reviews it before the second message is sent?
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Stagnant-NEEDINFO-bugs-tp4032113p4032601.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Hi Joel,
If you are asking our opinion on these ...
Le 2013-01-26 17:22, Joel Madero a écrit :
Hi All,
During our last QA call we came up with a plan for NEEDINFO bugs that
have been stagnant for 6+ months. I've decided to remove this from the
minutes because there are some concerns about the
c) a reminder + automated closing of bug after some period of time
+1 Something like automated closing after 3 months in NEEDINFO
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings:
On 01/26/2013 02:48 PM, Jack Leigh wrote:
c) a reminder + automated closing of bug after some period of time
+1 Something like automated closing after 3 months in NEEDINFO
Response: From developer side, they'll see a MASSIVE influx of emails,
pointed out by a core developer. This would need
35 matches
Mail list logo
