Lets try this Do Query (using default) http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/query.cgi
Put the name of the Ooo developer Assigned to Example OS Issue list (739 issues found) SJ Issue list (313 issues found) AMA Issue list (189 issues found) FL Issue list (188 issues found) If you want more, try BH Issue list (2732 issues found) I think Too many issue for the developer to handle maybe. Any suggestions how to halep this situations ? Maybe attracting more outside developer ? Best Regards, Utomo -----Original Message----- From: Mgr. Peter Tuharsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [dev] Why I no longer do beta testing for OOo Hi, guys Intro First, please, don't take my words too hard to offend anyone. Just want to say my (user's) impression of the trends in OOo developement. I attended community since the beta of 1.0.0 and started reporting bugs as an ordinary user. Later I became an ordinary admin supporting OOo on 150 PCs. I was excited by the project and couldn't wait enough for the next stable release. Core Since some 1.1.3, it seems that quality progress is degrading. BETA should give space to catch important bugs BEFORE they could dig into final product, however I know serious bugs that remain unfixed for years, survive even major versions and many minor "stable" releases. Now, beta testing makes little sense for me. Few of these bugs impose data loss of some degree (i.e. 54567, 35178, 32785, 21116, 35094, 58602) and by means of the guidelines, should block final release until got fixed. Simple solution -lowering the priority flag (dosen't look too good to have dataloss-grade bugs in the release, yeah?). I encountered even worse scenarios, when bug was simply marked as "workform"; dosen't matter that the user did nothing explicitely bad, just used the program in the intuitive way that could differ from programmer's "the holy and only" one, or from reasons, why it is done the way it is. After very bad start of OOo 2.0 (unable to save to network share on Linux, bug 54567 and related), I need now to test every _stable_ verion, whether is it worth deploying, or not. From my point of view, the last "stable" release has been 1.1.4. Since then, OOo BECAME CONSTANT BETA, whatever officially marked, slowly getting to RC with 2.0.3 I must say that not all bugs suffer this way. Import from WW8 is constantly getting better (everyone wants to see it happening even faster ;o) and bugs are even fixed. It seems to be of high priority; anyhow, it's great. And for sure there are another teams that keep that level of flexibility. Conclusion I think that developers deserve respect, and users who report problems correctly deserve it too. We all invest time and effort. Reporting the problem in understandable and reproducible way is said to be "half way of solving it" and it's not easy. Not many users are able doing this and I think that good reports AND GOOD REPORTERS (not that I consider myself) are valuable property. If nobody cares to solve them, let's face it. Be loud but fair telling that. Keep the appropriate priority and say "noone will fix this for 10 years" and user would decise, whether he wouldn't use OOo for that time, or start learning programming, or hire someone to fix it. Let there be "stable" releases with known critical bugs. Politically unbearable? Denying, hiding or bypassing the reported problems wouldn't make anyone happy -the affected users get confused and would eventually turn away, and new ones would face and (hopefully) report them again, or even turn away immediately. Someone would have to read the reports again. Etc. I know that exciting new functions gain much more fun, however getting own code to solid, nearly-bugless state should also be cause of honor for every programmer, shouldn't? Epilogue Reporting bugs and watching them solved has excited me with projects such as OOo, and also Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox or Thunderbird. However, two of them have just passed the "baby" stadium some year ago, and became quite solid and serious, so that it's harder to find severe bugs in there. Yes, there are glitches, but it is real pleasure to use them. E.q. with Firefox, I have had no objection from any user ever! In few cases, I've faced crappy webs. Not so with the OOo. It's pitty but my users consider it to be low-buck-low-quality product because they face code or usability problems sometimes, either mere bugs, or annoying behaviour, or useless interface (namely MAIL MERGE one). The OOo is PAINFULLY NEAR to "JUST WORKS" for PAINFULLY LONG TIME. Every admin knows that people like to shuffle, tend to make the computer responsible for their failures. It is even harder to advocate the OOo, because sometimes they are just right. E.q. the mail merge is bad enough so that it forced us to buy several M$Office licenses. There should be some clear strategic point of view: whether do we want product with exciting functions but too much bugs to be considered useful and nice by the end Joe user, or to have less shiny product that just works, very stable and reliable. Or some kind of best balance between these. Thank You very much for Your time You've invested in OOo Best regards Peter Tuharsky --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
