Hi Petr,
thank you for starting this cleanup. I am just preparing some other
activities, but unfortunately I currently have not much time.
I think that the page is slightly outdated.
Yes, it is!
It looked like the step 3 from the Bug Triage process.
More or less. But explications on that page and others are too
"businesslike". We should show interested new users that it's really
simple and no special skills (except some carefulness) are required. But
currently BugTriage Page is ok, we should create a more elaborated and
inviting introduction on a different page.
Do we really want to triage bugs in the state NEW or ASSIGNED?
No, that's nonsense, of course. A first draft showing what kind of bugs
need Review you find here:
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/1/1b/BugsNeedingReview.svg>
more detailed explication and matching query coming soon.
Until End of week I will star (no, I hope that I will be able to start)
Some Wiki-Pages:
- User-QA (Who we are, what we do)
- How we get a report "ready for Developers needs"
- how everybody can contribute
- bug reporting
- bug triage
3. Query last two days:
Of course it's also interesting to see the latest activities, but of
course all bugs without review deserve attention
Do we still need to put CONFIRMED to the Whiteboard?
IMHO, the bug is confirmed when the status is not UNCONFIRMED.
No, we should change that, please see a.m. Query picture draft. We have
approximately 2000 old NEW bugs where the main differentiation between
those who need review and those what do not. Changing proceeding will
need some preparation
5. NEEDINFO handling:
Yes, Currently I also think we should use the status for incomplete bug
reports, where info is required from reporter. The key word can be used
for other needs. But also here we have lots of bugs with key word
Needinfo, and a change is simple, but causes lots and lots of Mails, so
I am thinking about a slow "phasing out". But at least for me that's not
an important search criterion, we can switch immediately
I am not sure if the is a good idea to assign all bugs to the few people
on the http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/FindTheExpert page.
That's something developers have to handle. As long as nobody else is
known bugs will be assigned to those few people. Currently I see that
working very well for Calc with Kohei and Markus, they get managed that
problem "somehow". But for futere may be Component related mailing lists
as "pre-assignees" may be a better solution (your suggestion 1).
Develpers busy in that area can subscribe "their" lists to be up to date
concerning bugs that passed QA review. Your suggestion 1 seems to be the
most clear and simple soulution.
Best regards
Rainer
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [email protected]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
