[Libreoffice-qa] [ANN] LibreOffice 4.0.4 RC2 available
Dear Community, The Document Foundation is pleased to announce the second release candidate of our upcoming LibreOffice 4.0.4. This will be the fourth in a series of frequent updates to our feature-packed 4.0 branch. Please be aware that LibreOffice 4.0.4 RC2 is not ready for production use, you should continue to use LibreOffice 4.0.3 for that. The release is available for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X from our QA builds download page at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/ Should you find bugs, please report them to the FreeDesktop Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org A good way to assess the release candidate quality is to run some specific manual tests on it, our TCM wiki page has more details: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Regression_Tests#Full_Regression_Test - or checkout our manual test database for starting right away - http://manual-test.libreoffice.org/runtests/ For other ways to get involved with this exciting project - you can e.g. contribute code: http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ translate LibreOffice to your language: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice_Localization_Guide or help with funding our operations: http://donate.libreoffice.org/ The list of known issues and fixed bugs for 4.0.4 RC2 is available from here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Releases/4.0.4/RC2 Let us close again with a BIG Thank You! to all of you having contributed to the LibreOffice project - this release would not have been possible without your help. Yours, The Document Foundation Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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 Florian, *, On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com wrote: Pedro is it true, that this has changed? IMHO we had this nasty problem once, but IMO all new bugs should be UNCONFIRMED. Bugs reported via the BugAssistant should be UNCONFIRMED, but the default when creating bugs on bugzilla directly unfortunately is NEW. Users could manually change it to file it as unconfirmed, but most don't. ciao Chrisitan ___ 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, Liebe Grüße, / Yours, Florian Reisinger Am 15.06.2013 um 14:50 schrieb Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com: Hi Florian, *, On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com wrote: Pedro is it true, that this has changed? IMHO we had this nasty problem once, but IMO all new bugs should be UNCONFIRMED. Bugs reported via the BugAssistant should be UNCONFIRMED, but the default when creating bugs on bugzilla directly unfortunately is NEW. Users could manually change it to file it as unconfirmed, but most don't. Really..? That is definitely NOT the way it should be I am quite sure that this changed recently... @Joel, Bjoern: Your opinion? ciao Chrisitan ___ 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
On 06/15/2013 02:52 PM, Florian Reisinger wrote: Am 15.06.2013 um 14:50 schrieb Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com wrote: Pedro is it true, that this has changed? IMHO we had this nasty problem once, but IMO all new bugs should be UNCONFIRMED. Bugs reported via the BugAssistant should be UNCONFIRMED, but the default when creating bugs on bugzilla directly unfortunately is NEW. Users could manually change it to file it as unconfirmed, but most don't. Really..? That is definitely NOT the way it should be I am quite sure that this changed recently... Isn't the default initial state of a bug tied to the reporter's canconfirm permission or somesuch, NEW if you have canconfirm perm, UNCONFIRMED if not? Stephan ___ 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 Whiteboard Status
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 09:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote: Hey Terrence, On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.comwrote: On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 10:44 -0700, Joel Madero wrote: I finally got around to updating the wiki: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Whiteboard#Bibisecthttps://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Whiteboard#Bibisect Let's not use all the other options now and stick with: bibisected PreBibisect bibisectrequest So, considering the possibility of updating wiki page HowToBibisect in line with the reduction in the number of whiteboard values, I wonder: (*) The explanation of whiteboard status PreBibisect says Only use this f you are using the daily bibisect package or the bibisect40 package, as the tagged version does not go back as far. I suggest Only use this if you are using the 4.0 bibisect package or the 3.5 bibisect package, as the tagged versions in the other bibisect packages do not go back as far. +1, sounds fine, although no one should be using 3.5 bibisect package any longer. The bibiect40 package contains everything in 3.5 so using 3.5 is outdated. I believe the wiki says something along these lines :) If the suggestion is not right, then my understanding of the bibisect packages is in urgent need of correction. Help! Hm looks like you get it :) Done (*) Should existing whiteboard words bibisect40bugs, bibisect36bugs, and bibisect35bugs be changed to bibisectrequest? Is it worth the flurry of emails and updated date-last-changed fields? Only for open bugs, perhaps? No, these mean that bibisect was done, Actually, these words have not been used at all in the Whiteboard, and on taking a closer look I see no suggestion that they ever should be. They are merely the text for links column Bugs need bibisecting in the table of bibisect versions. With the use of fewer Whiteboard values going forward, the three rightmost columns in that table (Bugs need bibisecting, Posting result in whiteboard, Bibisected bugs in range) can be deleted, each column to be replaced by one point in the body applicable to all versions. Is this a good idea? not that it's requested. So the more appropriate would be bibisected but I don't think we should do this, at least not yet, with the NEEDINFO project going we're already sending a lot of spam to developers and users from FDO - sending even more seems like a bad idea atm. In the future this could be useful. That sounds entirely reasonable. Can you quickly get a query together that shows us approx. how many bugs we're talking about - I think focusing on non closed bugs would be ideal, why update whiteboard status on bugs that have been fixed? On Monday (2013-06-10) I ran a buzilla query for all bugs with Keyword regression or Whiteboard contianing bibisect. Here is the short version. Be warned that I found several bugs in my count along the way; it would be terriby optimistic to think that I have found the last bug. any status open non-open all records 1641310 1331 regression keyword1617294 1323 *bibisect* 244104140 bibisectrequest 47 41 6 prebibisect 6 3 3 bibisected*190 60130 bibisected 9 5 4 bibisect35older 1 0 1 bibisected35* 91 25 66 bibisected35older 76 23 53 bibisected3587 23 64 bibisected35newer2 1 1 bibisected36*5 1 4 bibisected36older1 1 0 bibisected36 3 0 3 bibisected36a1 0 1 == yeah, really: #54651 bibisected36newer0 0 0 bibisected40* 87 29 58 bibisected40older4 2 2 bibisected4084 28 56 bibisected40newer1 0 1 Terry. P. S.: Sorry to be slow responding. Along the way to the numbers I found fdo#65619 segfault querying spreadsheet with LIKE criterion and fdo#65685 constant in select list querying a spreadsheet yields blanks, and then I learned how to import a .cvs into
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug Report Incorrectly Marked as NEW
Hi Florian, *, On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com wrote: Am 15.06.2013 um 14:50 schrieb Christian Lohmaier lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com wrote: Pedro is it true, that this has changed? IMHO we had this nasty problem once, but IMO all new bugs should be UNCONFIRMED. Bugs reported via the BugAssistant should be UNCONFIRMED, but the default when creating bugs on bugzilla directly unfortunately is NEW. Users could manually change it to file it as unconfirmed, but most don't. Really..? That is definitely NOT the way it should be I am quite sure that this changed recently... Ah, you're right - it was fixed already, I'm not up-to-date on that :-) https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31457 doesn't tell when unconfirmed as default state was introduced, only when unconfirmed state was made available.. bugs filed should be unconfirmed by default (but user can change to NEW when filing a bug) (and are unconfirmed by default, at least with my privileges) And AFAIK every bugzilla user on fdo has canconfirm privileges. ciao Christian ___ 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
On Sat, 2013-06-15 at 15:41 +0200, Florian Reisinger wrote: It should be unconfirmed as long as someone from the QA team (so everyone triaging) can reproduce it on his machine, preferably on a different OS Well, I usually do not file a bug until I am pretty sure that I am seeing what I see. But there are still lots of possible questions for QA ... (*) Is it a bug or just a feature I do not understand? (*) Is the problem restricted to my platform? To my build parameters perhaps? To something entirely ideosyncratic? (*) This is really bad. Please tell me it is not widespread. Mere UNCONFIRMED is pretty vague. Could we use some conventions for Whiteboard to ask for confirmation of particular aspects? Or perhaps just a Whiteboard value requesting early attention from QA? (In the past, I have asked the QA list for help in the really bad case. A high priority seemed wrong because I strongly suspected that the problem was *not* widespread.) 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] Bug Fixed in 4.2 branch, broken in 4.1 daily, status thoughts?
I think we need to be more stricter, if the bug is in a published version in LibreOffice download page, like is the case, and if it is not fixed at least for the last published version, it can not be considered as fixed. Miguel Ángel. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Fixed-in-4-2-branch-broken-in-4-1-daily-status-thoughts-tp4061558p4061563.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, I think it is not needed any special justification in this case, even I don't like some linked people. Really I do not understand the concerns. Food for thought usually is good. IMMHO there are concerns that should be, as it is so few work to look for in the QA email. Or how the main job for QA team is to deal with the ... list of bugs. Or when I have posted relevant comments and questions in the QA scope, and seems no one care about them or maybe someone care who knows?. Regards. Miguel Ángel. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Food-for-thought-tp4061338p4061552.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
You are right, and this is the root of some misunderstandings reviewing bugs, because one can think this status was established by the reporter, what it is not true. Please can some admin restore the default to UNCONFIRMED. Miguel Ángel -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-Report-Incorrectly-Marked-as-NEW-tp4061545p4061556.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] wiki page oddities: How To Bibisect
I have recently been paying some attention to wiki page How To Bibisect https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/HowToBibisect, and I see a few funny things. Comments and guidance welcome. (*) In the list of bugs needing bibisect displayed in the page, each bug number is preceded by the word EasyHack. I think this is simply wrong. (*) The list of bugs needing bibisect displayed in the page does not have a particular sequence, at least not one that I can figure out. (*) The list of bugs needing bibisect displayed in the page has just open bugs, but the link behind Open this list in Bugzilla includes closed bugs. 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/
