I don't think anybody in the thread is objecting the idea that QA team do verification on behalf of reporter if the reporter cannot verify the bug himself. That's why the rule "If bug reporter doesn't come back to verify bugs in 2 weeks after bugs have been marked RELEASED - FIXED, QA contact will help to retest and verify the bugs." is defined here, and I believe QA team has been doing this, so we are on the same page from my perspective.
The point is that some bugs don't have detailed reproduce steps, which makes QA team no able to follow the bug. I see your proposal is to use keyword "verification pending" to flag those bugs, and I think it works for me, considering I heard in parallel that "CLSOED" status will be removed in bugzilla 4.0. Thanks, Fan From: eric.le-r...@nokia.com<mailto:eric.le-r...@nokia.com> [mailto:eric.le-r...@nokia.com]<mailto:[mailto:eric.le-r...@nokia.com]> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:24 PM To: Zhao, Fan; ext-iekku.huttu...@nokia.com<mailto:ext-iekku.huttu...@nokia.com>; meego-qa@lists.meego.com<mailto:meego-qa@lists.meego.com> Subject: Re: A few clarifications around bug follow up Hi, Very interesting thread :) IMHO, it's a bad idea to close unverified bugs after 28 days without actually having an alternate verification process in place. I think we should rely on the QA teams to do verification on behalf of original reporters if they don't react quick enough. A comment like "verified on behalf of original reporter" should also be written along with the image used for verification. This activity is particularly important when we need to ensure all bugs marked as blocker for a specific release are actually fixed. Then I'd say the QA team verification prevails. Ideally, we'd put up a QA team verification squad so we get feedback on the fixes in the releases as early as possible. Since we have a significant amount of resources in the QA teams, this is in my view the best operational practice to ensure software quality in the long run. If some of the bugs remain without verification even after the QA team has tried to do so, then we should clearly identify which bugs fall into this bucket with eg. A keyword. Something like "verification pending" or "stalled". To sum-up, I believe that in all of the bug lifecycle, the QA contribution is best for the project if every single status/resolution is followed-up closely. Cheers, Eric From: Fan Zhao <fan.z...@intel.com<mailto:fan.z...@intel.com>> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:18:24 +0800 To: Huttunen Iekku <ext-iekku.huttu...@nokia.com<mailto:ext-iekku.huttu...@nokia.com>>, "meego-qa@lists.meego.com<mailto:meego-qa@lists.meego.com>" <meego-qa@lists.meego.com<mailto:meego-qa@lists.meego.com>> Cc: Eric Le Roux <eric.le-r...@nokia.com<mailto:eric.le-r...@nokia.com>> Subject: RE: A few clarifications around bug follow up I am fine to change the time limit to 28 days. I am not sure if it's doable or necessary to implement the rule in bugzilla, I will leave Eric to comment it. But definitely I can change the term from "cannot" to "are not allowed". Thanks, Fan From: ext-iekku.huttu...@nokia.com<mailto:ext-iekku.huttu...@nokia.com> [mailto:ext-iekku.huttu...@nokia.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:05 PM To: Zhao, Fan; meego-qa@lists.meego.com<mailto:meego-qa@lists.meego.com> Cc: eric.le-r...@nokia.com<mailto:eric.le-r...@nokia.com> Subject: RE: A few clarifications around bug follow up Hi, Thanks Fan for the clarification. They seem fine to me except few minor things. Closing the not verified bug should be done after 28 days, so the time limit would be the same than with the not replied "needinfo" bug. How the reopening is controlled? Can we add some mechanism in Bugzilla for that? Eric, what is your opinion? Or do we need to change the text from "cannot" to "is not allowed" or something similar? Br, Iekku From: meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com<mailto:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com> [mailto:meego-qa-boun...@lists.meego.com] On Behalf Of ext Zhao, Fan Sent: 12 April, 2011 16:53 To: meego-qa@lists.meego.com<mailto:meego-qa@lists.meego.com> Subject: [Meego-qa] A few clarifications around bug follow up As I am observing some confusions about responsibility in bug follow up, I'd like to make some clarifications here. About bug RESOLUTION: Bug owners are encouraged to set bug status to "RESOLVED - FIXED" when they submit the fix to OBS, and to add a comment to specify commit ID. It will be much easier for release engineering team to track if the fix has been integrated. About bug REOPEN: Bugs cannot be REOPENED if they have been VERIFIED FIXED for more than 2 weeks. A new bug should be filed even though the behavior is the same or similar as the previous VERIFIED FIXED bug. The reason is that in most cases, the root cause would become different even though the behavior is similar, reopening old bugs will cause confusion. About bug verification: Bug reporter is responsible for verifying bugs following the "how to reproduce" instructions in the original bug report when the bug is marked as RELEASED - FIXED, and change bug status to VERIFIED if the bug is not reproducible; If bug reporter doesn't come back to verify bugs in 2 weeks after bugs have been marked RELEASED - FIXED, QA contact will help to retest and verify the bugs. If QA contact has difficulty to follow up the original bug report, and fails to get clarification from reporter, QA contact will set the bugs to "CLOSED" status in one month after the bugs are set to RELEASED-FIXED. Feel free to reply this email if you have questions or different opinions. Thanks, Fan
_______________________________________________ MeeGo-qa mailing list MeeGo-qa@lists.meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-qa
