bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)
From the QA meeting minutes: (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic) I have been thinking about the possibility of canned pieces of queries to ease searching for a particular kind of crash. I mean ... (*) A segmentaion fault is a segfault is a SIGSEGV is a signal 11. (*) A crash may be a segmentation fault, except when it is something else. Something else could be an assertion, SIGABRT, or signal 6, It could even be a hang. And lots of reports say nothing more specific than crash. and so forth. I have not said anything here before because I hoped to make a more concrete suggestion. But if we assume standardized words in the summary or whiteboard or keyword (without thinking about how that standardization happens), things become very simple. HTH, Terry. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:43:43PM -0400, Terrence Enger wrote: From the QA meeting minutes: (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic) Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable. - Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a standardized vocabulary - Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as Terrence shows here ;) ) - Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker? One possible method for increasing use of standardized language would be to ask users to tag bugs, e.g. table, inserted graphic, footer, paragraph style. We could then search for and consolidate tags such as image and graphic as a part of the de-duplication process. Joel has also proposed the use of a set of questions during bug submission. These questions could be used to insert some standardized information into the bug report. Best, --R -- Robinson Tryon LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald Senior QA Bug Wrangler The Document Foundation qu...@libreoffice.org ___ 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:43:43PM -0400, Terrence Enger wrote: From the QA meeting minutes: (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic) Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable. - Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a standardized vocabulary - Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as Terrence shows here ;) ) - Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker? Best, Bjoern ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 23:57 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:43:43PM -0400, Terrence Enger wrote: From the QA meeting minutes: (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic) Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable. - Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a standardized vocabulary Absolutely right. In fact, we should not even mention it to a new reporter until the need arises. - Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as Terrence shows here ;) ) Triagers would be the first to apply standardized vocabulary. Subject, of course, to us wanting not to discourage people who a just not interested in vocabulary. The goal is to be able to ignore uninteresting bugs more efficiently. - Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker? I see the primary user being a triager (or maybe a reporter) looking for duplicates. sky colorblue Developers do not matter, because we (QA) are going to do such a good job that no developer ever has to look at a bug she is not interested in and which is ready for her attention. /sky Hey, I admit that that is blue sky. How far can we expect to advance toward that? How much value is there in the yet-to-be-demonstrated incomplete result? I do not know, but the sheer number of words I am writing suggests the improbability of a good result. Sigh. Perhaps the detail page for a bug should have a button meaning I am a developer, and I have looked at this bug, and I am sorry that I spent my time this way. Well, a buttopn plus the opportunity to say what enticed him to go there is the first place. HTH, Terry. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)
From the QA meeting minutes: (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic) I have been thinking about the possibility of canned pieces of queries to ease searching for a particular kind of crash. I mean ... (*) A segmentaion fault is a segfault is a SIGSEGV is a signal 11. (*) A crash may be a segmentation fault, except when it is something else. Something else could be an assertion, SIGABRT, or signal 6, It could even be a hang. And lots of reports say nothing more specific than crash. and so forth. I have not said anything here before because I hoped to make a more concrete suggestion. But if we assume standardized words in the summary or whiteboard or keyword (without thinking about how that standardization happens), things become very simple. HTH, 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:43:43PM -0400, Terrence Enger wrote: From the QA meeting minutes: (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic) Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable. - Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a standardized vocabulary - Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as Terrence shows here ;) ) - Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker? Best, Bjoern ___ 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisect suggestion (was: QA Meeting Minutes - 2014-04-21)
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 23:57 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:43:43PM -0400, Terrence Enger wrote: From the QA meeting minutes: (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a similar one (e.g. image - picture or graphic) Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable. - Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a standardized vocabulary Absolutely right. In fact, we should not even mention it to a new reporter until the need arises. - Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as Terrence shows here ;) ) Triagers would be the first to apply standardized vocabulary. Subject, of course, to us wanting not to discourage people who a just not interested in vocabulary. The goal is to be able to ignore uninteresting bugs more efficiently. - Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker? I see the primary user being a triager (or maybe a reporter) looking for duplicates. sky colorblue Developers do not matter, because we (QA) are going to do such a good job that no developer ever has to look at a bug she is not interested in and which is ready for her attention. /sky Hey, I admit that that is blue sky. How far can we expect to advance toward that? How much value is there in the yet-to-be-demonstrated incomplete result? I do not know, but the sheer number of words I am writing suggests the improbability of a good result. Sigh. Perhaps the detail page for a bug should have a button meaning I am a developer, and I have looked at this bug, and I am sorry that I spent my time this way. Well, a buttopn plus the opportunity to say what enticed him to go there is the first place. HTH, 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/
