Just for convenience, my changes so far today are
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73158&oldid=73085>.
They go beyond the changes I mention in-line.
Quoting "Joel Madero" <jmadero....@gmail.com>:
On 07/28/2013 12:00 PM, libreoffice-qa-requ...@lists.freedesktop.org wrote:
I have added some instructions to deal with tags latest and oldest in
the daily bibisect repo
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73085&oldid=73084>.
Will you be good enough to look over the changes?
Of course, if the repo came with these tags laready in place, that
whole section of the page could go away.
Thanks,
Terry.
I'll take a look - we've been talking quite a bit about cleaning
this page and I see that you're adding and cleaning it up. Was
wondering if you'd be willing (if not let me know and I'll take a
stab at it) to do a couple things to the page.
I will be glad to continue hacking at the page.
1. Can you add a note that says if the bibisect shows the bug the
entire time (ie. it's prebibisect) to mark the version as 3.5beta0
in FDO - this is the best we can do currently - and add
"prebibisect" to whiteboard.
Done:
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73158&oldid=73157>.
2. Rearrange the page just a bit - I think logically
a) Intro
b) Limitations
c) Download stuff
d) how to bibisect (currently in a different location)
e) Bug that need bibisected
f) troubleshooting
Done:
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73146&oldid=73144>
I think only one change there but it makes more sense intrinsically to me.
3. Another minor thing that I see is in "versions" it says
bibisect40bugs for bugs that need bibisecting - as far as I know
every bug that needs bibisected is "bibisectrequest" - I haven't
seen the 4.0 and 4.0+ (daily) differentiated - perhaps I missed
something though :)
BZ shows no bugs with bibisect40 in either the Whiteboard or
Keywords. I changed it:
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73155&oldid=73151>
I remember from June that the linked bugzilla queries use a baffling
veriety of selection criteria. Do you have an idea about whether
there is a reason for this variety? Or is it something that just
happened?
Thanks Terry for tackling this how to wiki - it has a lot going on
there so the cleaner and simpler we make it the better.
Hah! We haven't even started on the witheboard statuses and
prescribed comments for reporting the results. The page already has a
lot of instructions conditioned by the tester's choice of bibisect
download. I only foresee that getting worse: there are three bibisect
versions, and each can be unhelpful when the regression is off either
end. (Yes, a regression newer than the 40+ version is plausible. I
went weeks without updating my download after an attempted update hung
for days showing an ETA of a hundred odd days.) Among the unseccssful
cases, only the determination that a regression is older than the OVA
or 40 repositories marks the end of the search. How much should we
try to track in the whiteboard status?
If you're busy or just don't want to do it just let me know - I
didn't want to be editing over you :)
I am happy to continue. Knowing that someone is checking my work
frees me to make bigger changes.
Thanks,
Terry,
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
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/
