André Schnabel schrieb:
...
But even this would only help to ease our current problems. If we do not
change our mind from "there is no Software without bugs" to "only a
fixed Bug is a good Bug" we will find ourselves spending more time for
excuses than for doing the real work.
Looking at the number of more than 1000 fixed bugs for the OOo 3.1
release (see http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/what_was_done_in_ooo) I
think that the developers are quite aware that "only a fixed Bug is a
good Bug". What Throsten only pointed out is that people should not
expect to find zero issues inside the IssueTracker but that we (sadly)
have to accept that software is not free of bugs. This is not an excuse
but a simple fact.
What I'd like to see in the future is:
- joint and better coordinated efforts from QA and development to *fix*
bugs
OK. Could you explain how a better coordination would help in fixing
more bugs?
- the common goal of the project to work on bugfixing (instead of the
separate statement of the QA project that fixing bugs is not within our
responsibility)
It is already. About two thirds of the issues that came into OOo 3.1
were defects.
- the commitment to fix bugs even in old features (and not only
regressions). Each feature once was new. Following our current policy
you just need to wait long enough to counter the regression argument.
IMHO this is a simple matter of prioritization. We should fix the bugs
that are most severe (the complexity and risk when fixing a bug might
also be a factor influencing the priority), no matter how old they are.
Perhaps many of these bugs in old features simply were not and are not
severe enough to rise high enough in the priority list to get fixed.
Comments are welcome :)
Above they are :).
Regards,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
