[Libreoffice-qa] Join Triage Contest
Hi, I would like to Join Triage Contest. I already added my name to the table on the wiki My name: Jean-Baptiste Faure My Bugzilla/FreeDesktop email: the same as the one used here. Best regards JBF -- Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents. ___ 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] Food for thought...
Another interesting reading http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2013/06/13/wasted-time/ This time about the new sidebar (and more, obviously) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Food-for-thought-tp4061338p4061428.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Food for thought...
Hi Pedro, On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:12:48AM -0700, Pedro wrote: Another interesting reading http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2013/06/13/wasted-time/ This time about the new sidebar (and more, obviously) great to see your enthusiasm here, but while that is indeed an interesting read, can we please keep the QA list on QA topics? There is e.g.: disc...@documentfoundation.org us...@global.libreoffice.org market...@global.libreoffice.org for more general discussions unrelated to QA topics. 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] Food for thought...
Hi Bjoern Bjoern Michaelsen wrote great to see your enthusiasm here, but while that is indeed an interesting read, can we please keep the QA list on QA topics? Actually I think these ARE QA topics (although they are not QA *work*). The first article talks about User Satisfaction which is a concern for anyone worried about Quality (I hope...) The second one is about the Sidebar which is getting too much attention while it still is not ready for mainstream (e.g. many icons are missing). I know it is quite hidden but it is getting focus like it's a Major new feature (the same that happened with the Persona which is still an unfinished job IMO) Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Food-for-thought-tp4061338p4061530.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Report-Builder LO 4.0.4.2
Hi *, I have just tried to open or create a report with LO 4.0.4.2 LO crased immediately. Have cleaned the personal folder, habe changed the Java-Runtime. Couldn't start a report without crash of the whole LO. Could someone have a look at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65762 ? Regards, Robert ___ 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Bug Report Incorrectly Marked as NEW
Hello, I reported a bug, which is located at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65571 . However, it is marked as NEW even though no one triaged it. Can someone resolve this? Thanks. ___ 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] Bug Report Incorrectly Marked as NEW
Hi Enervation Enervation wrote I reported a bug, which is located at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65571 However, it is marked as NEW even though no one triaged it. Can someone resolve this? This is the default now. Bugs are initially marked as NEW. If additional information is required it will be changed to NEEDINFO. I'm not sure what a triager should change it to if it is confirmed... @Joel??? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Report-Incorrectly-Marked-as-NEW-tp4061545p4061555.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hi All, This is a general problem that I think we shoudl just talk a bit about. If we confirm a bug on 4.1 but it's fixed in 4.2 master - what status is appropriate? Usually WFM is good but it's hard to tell a user so it'll be broken for the foreseeable future but by 4.2 release you'll be good to go The bug in question isn't major at all (fdo#65550) but looking for opinions. Tracking down the appropriate patch could take a lot of time so the option is: 1. New - try to track down patch but acknowledge that this takes us away from other tasks 2. WFM - with a note to user that in a few months it'll be fixed for you 3 .?? Best, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
Hi Joel jmadero wrote This is a general problem that I think we shoudl just talk a bit about. If we confirm a bug on 4.1 but it's fixed in 4.2 master - what status is appropriate? Usually WFM is good but it's hard to tell a user so it'll be broken for the foreseeable future but by 4.2 release you'll be good to go The bug in question isn't major at all (fdo#65550) but looking for opinions. IMO the triager should ask the dev who submitted the patch if he can be back-port and cherry pick the patch to the branch that is going to be released sooner (especially if it is a regression). If you don't know who fixed it, then maybe ask the ESC... If it can't be backported, close the bug as FIXED RESOLVED with a final comment like Fixed in Branch 4.2 I assume that WFM means Works for me (you do have the bad habit of using acronyms ;) ). I disagree on using Works for me. As a Bug submitter that is the WORST answer I can get. It means in plain language That's your problem because it's working fine on my end In the particular case of this bug that will only be fixed in 4.2 (i.e. 6 months from now) if this was a critical problem for the user it would mean he would give up on LO (maybe return after 6 months... probably not...). So I really think that Devs need to make an effort to submit bug fixes to master and simultaneously cherry pick to the soonest to be released branch. Just my 2 cents ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Fixed-in-4-2-branch-broken-in-4-1-daily-status-thoughts-tp4061558p4061562.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
jmadero wrote This is a general problem that I think we shoudl just talk a bit about. If we confirm a bug on 4.1 but it's fixed in 4.2 master - what status is appropriate? Joel, As the support tail continues to stretch us thin, performing QA bug triage and commenting Works for Me (noting specific build details of course) really does seem the correct action for issues against earlier releases but that are proven functional in current developmental builds. I see it as in the best interest of moving the project along on all fronts. I really think the more useful QA action, as you attempted, is to assist the original poster, and any collaborating reporters, to test that fixes available in daily builds of master (currently 4.2.0.0alpha0+), or of the daily master of pending releases (currently 4.0.5.0, or 4.1.0.0 beta2+), does actually fix the bug for them and to document so in Bugzilla or to otherwise facilitate involvement of the devs. While we can't ask every user to start using the latest daily build--for specific issues we should expect a user originating an issue to do so--and thereby allow our QA process to verify the fixes pushed out by devs are valid. Even if there is no probability the patch will be backported to an earlier release. The reporting user then having seen that it works, can decide if the newer build is more useful to their needs. Also keep in mind that the devs may mark a bug Resolved Fixed but then annotate a Whiteboard target value for it, e.g. target:4.0.5, target:4.1.1, for a 4.0.3.3 bug they've fixed but that won't be pushed down to 4.0.4. As active QA participants I see nothing wrong in reading that annotation and then telling a user so it'll be broken for the foreseeable future but by 4.2 release you'll be good to go if that is the way the dev sees it. But, if we find it to be a really serious issue, we can elevate the importance, or add it to MAB for the affected release and solicit ESC discussion. I don't believe these normal QA actions are that off putting to those users that actively track issues they've reported. The process does meet expectations of users and developers who both need the feedback. I see my role in QA as facilitating the flow of detailed information in both directions. Stuart -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Fixed-in-4-2-branch-broken-in-4-1-daily-status-thoughts-tp4061558p4061572.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Bug Report Incorrectly Marked as NEW
Hi all, Pedro is it true, that this has changed? IMHO we had this nasty problem once, but IMO all new bugs should be UNCONFIRMED. Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger Am 14.06.2013 um 23:43 schrieb Pedro pedl...@gmail.com: Hi Enervation Enervation wrote I reported a bug, which is located at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65571 However, it is marked as NEW even though no one triaged it. Can someone resolve this? This is the default now. Bugs are initially marked as NEW. If additional information is required it will be changed to NEEDINFO. I'm not sure what a triager should change it to if it is confirmed... @Joel??? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Report-Incorrectly-Marked-as-NEW-tp4061545p4061555.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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/ ___ 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/
