Hi :) Yes, i agree. It's not worth posting bug-reports against any in the 5.0.x branch now. Finding the exact release where the change happened is not hugely useful, especially right now. It might be useful sometime after the bug-report/feature-request is opened.
It is always difficult to gather everything that might be useful in the first post of a bug-report/feature-request. It is probably better to just "post early and update often" so keep the initial bug-report/feature-request really short. Just a tiny post and maybe even state "More to follow ..." at the bottom of the post so that any dev or triager can see that they don't have to type in a request for further info. There are so many bug-reports that the chances are that you will have been able to add additional information before anyone gets a chance to read yours. As you add information over the next couple of weeks that might "bump the thread" a bit too try to keep it nearer the top but try to avoid flagrant abuse of that. A little use of something sometimes makes a thing more intriguing where a lot of use becomes a pain. Many of us stick with the more stable branch so many on this mailing list may not have moved to the 5.1.x either. Those who have may well be too busy to try out someone else's issue just yet. Also the issue is not causing the program or computer to crash or be unstable or misbehave in that sort of way so it's not really a "bug" as such, at least not to the devs ways of thinking. It's more like a feature-request, but for something that used to work a certain way and now works a different way. So i'd recommend posting an initial feature-request asap, but with minimal information = just the main issue. Stuart has helped pin-point the issue quite a bit and hopefully that can help you keep the first post really short and direct. Regards from Tom :) On 14 May 2016 at 09:35, Ady Ady <ady4...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Tom Davies <tomc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi :) > > > > Thanks for seeking feedback from here before posting a > > bug-report/feature-request. As you know, sometimes a change in > behaviour is > > required to consolidate inconsistent behaviour or to smooth out other > > coding, or to keep-up with current trends in other, similar(ish) > programs or > > happens somewhat unintentionally. Usually any such changes are noted in > the > > change-log, neatly re-written at; > > https://www.libreoffice.org/download/release-notes/ > > > > LibreOffice/OpenOffice is over 10 years old and a lot has changed in that > > time. Hopefully the newer ways are easy to adapt to and are an > improvement. > > Where that is not the case it's fairly easy to post a bug-report although > > carefully phrasing it as a feature-request seems to have more chance of > > attracting interest. > > > > So, please give it a fair go but feel free to post a > > bug-report/feature-request now that you've narrowed it down to being a > > change-of-focus issue. > > > > Good luck and regards from > > Tom :) > > > > I am unsure whether I should open a bug report / enhancement request, > considering that I have not tested 5.1.x. > > From Stuart's reply, I understood that some things have been changing > in the Startup Screen, and that they are still changing. I would guess > that having a request for enhancement without actually reporting the > behavior of the most current / updated release (5.1.x) would not > attract enough attention and would probably be considered an > incomplete report. > > Additionally, the only version from the 5.0.x branch I have tested is > 5.0.6.3, so the (initial) version number in which the behavior changed > would not be accurate (enough). > > If I cannot test the current (5.1.x) behavior (because I am not ready > to update yet), how would I report a bug / request an enhancement? I > mean, I could, but it would probably be mostly ignored, wouldn't it? > > I think it might be useful, before actually opening a request for > enhancement, if someone could try to replicate the behavior / tests in > the 5.1.x branch and report it here. Also, testing under other OSes > might be relevant too. > > With more details and tests from different users under diverse > circumstances / versions, a request for enhancement might be more > relevant and taken more seriously. > > Finally, I am still unsure whether this is really a request for > enhancement or rather a bug report with a regression between 4.4.x and > 5.0.x, considering that the expected behavior was working correctly in > 4.4.x, it is (partially) broken in 5.0.6.3 (and maybe in all the 5.0.x > branch), and I see no advantage from the users' perspective to not > have these shortcuts working from the start. Comments about this > matter would be very welcome. > > I hope users can attempt these simple tests and report their results, > including the OS and version information, so a potential bug report / > request for enhancement would be actually worth. > > TIA, > Ady. > > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+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/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+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/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
