Hi Andre,
Andre Schnabel schrieb:
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.
This is certainly a step in the right direction.
- 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.
But this does not invalidate my above statement.
- 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 :)
Nope. It is not "the" excuse since "the" excuse in your initial mail
referred to the explanation of software containing bugs, and it was not
an "excuse" but meant to be an explanation why we have quite a lot of
older bugs. If you don't want others to deal with your subject, then
just go on like this...
All this is true - but does the fact that we should fix "important
bugs first" justify that the others get (almost) never fixed?
Yes it does.
Wouldn't it more efficient, if we fix some minor bugs if we are
going to fix important bugs in the same are anyway?
AFAIK this is already the case if the developer thinks the fix has a low
risk involved.
Regards,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
