On 26/05/14 20:13, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: > Hi Herbert, > > I think we have some misunderstanding here. > > It's an essential that information should be consistent at any place for > Bugzilla. > > Here an overview concerning priority /severity of the issues listed in > the meta-issue; > > > ! Critical major normal trivial ! Total > ---!-----------------------------------------!------ > P1 ! 1 . . . ! 1 > P2 ! . . . 1 ! 1 > P3 ! . 4 5 . ! 9 > ---!-----------------------------------------!------ > Tot! 1 4 5 1 ! 11 > > So my question is why Issue 114361 with severity "trivial" has been > considered by godlike decision (there is no reasoning, neither in Issue > 124985 nor in Issue 114361) so serious that it has been added added to > the meta bug? With some minimum carefulness the severity would have been > rised to "major" or more, the dataloss keyword would have been added, so > that the decision will be comprehensible. I did that now in Issue 114361 > > Common known characteristics of unresolved Issue 124985 blocking Bug > reports you find in Report [1] (More than 3400). So the question is why > have 11 been picked as blocker for the meta issue, but more of 3400 not > [2]?
The answer is quite simple because developers took care of these issues and provided a fix or have a fix in place. We don't fix issues in the order they are detected or reported. > > With some minimum corrections for the criteria of possible Meta bug > blockers I can reduce the number by 90% [3] > > [4] Sorts these issues by priority /severity, the 12 with "critical + > P2" need some urgent review as I did for "Issue 118725 - images dropped > by random" > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118725> > "Issue 122780" > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122780> and others > > And so on. > > Such systematic working is the only way for real progress. it is indeed useful but again anybody can focus on the issues they are interested in. And a closer look on the issues in the meta issue will show that they are all valid and serious enough. And in general we have so many bug reports that it is nearly impossible to to address them all, at least from a developer perspective. And if issues are not reproduceable or bug docs are missing etc. they got easy ignored because we have many others with better descriptions etc. But I agree 100% that we should add as much as possible meta info in the issue to make the selection or review as easy as possible. In case of 114361 the data loss keyword is of course very useful to make clear that this issue is a good candidate. We received some reports regarding this or similar behaviour and Oliver did a more careful analysis and found the root cause. The good thing is that he searched for similar older issues and found one. > > If after some work we have valid data in the bug reports Meta Bugs > indeed can be useful to show up dependencies and relations what are not > simply visible in the bug reports. > > For anything else queries like > <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=149854&namedcmd=Potential411Blockers> > (shared with registered users) are much more powerful, especially in > projects with bigger community than AOO and much bug tracker activity > (20 reports per day, not only 2). > I think we are all in the same boat and have a common understanding but we are not yet in the situation where we have a cleaned bugtracker. And we have too less volunteers to help either in reviewing the issues or fix them. And of course you drove an active volunteer (maybe over motivated) away with a somewhat strict and of course your personal opinion how QA work should be done. You can now disagree and can move away as well (I hope you do not) but it is as it is. And we have no ideal world in such a huge open source project. We can learn from each other and can improve over time. But it is always important how we collaborate and work together. For now I am in favor to address the most recent issues first and keep an eye on the priority and incoming issues in general where possible. Kind regards Juergen > Best regards > > Rainer > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
