Hi Jörg, -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Von: "Jörg Jahnke" <[email protected]>
> 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. Yes - but this simple fact (that I accept) is abused as excuse to accept a constantly growing pile of bugs (or better not-processed bug reports). The number of 1000 bugfixes ideed is great. But you need to set this in the correct context. For the time from 3.0 release (2008-10-13) to 3.1 release (2009-05-07) received a total of 6692 issue reports (5067 filed as defects). At the same time a total of 5625 issues (4164 defects) got resolved. So - altough we fixed 1000 bugs in OOo 3.1 (I'd guess, the real number is much higher), the total number of open bug reports grew by 900! > > > > 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? I think, Mathias Bauer gave a good explanation in http://de.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=40963 (sorry, that this is German, I hope some of us might get the idea anyway). In short: If developers and QA know what each other is going to work on, you can concentrate on a given area. For the developer it will be more easy, as it improves the ratio of "real work" to "admistrative tasks" (like cws creation, setting up environments, ...) A QA volunteer would be more encouraged, as there is some kind of guarrantee, that his work does really help the current development. > > - 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. As said - the toal number of open bugreports is constantly increasing. > > - 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. And once again the nice excuse :) All this is true - but does the fact that we should fix "important bugs first" justify that the others get (almost) never fixed? Wouldn't it more efficient, if we fix some minor bugs if we are going to fix important bugs in the same are anyway? This indeed needs preparation and some work. (But I'm open to do this as QA volunteer). Best, André -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
