Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Whiteboard Consistency

2014-07-14 Thread Miklos Vajna
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:58:56AM +0400, Jay Philips philip...@hotmail.com 
wrote:
 I have been using ww8 to cover all the doc/xls/etc. as i saw Stahl use
 it in one of his comments. I saw Joren using odf, so i've been using
 that sometimes. I dont see much benefit in breaking odf down into
 individual odf extensions as we can already limit queries by application.

WW8 is just WinWord 8, i.e. what Microsoft calls [MS-DOC], using ww8
to refer to xls/ppt is misleading.

Maybe just use the extension for all the cases? That's easy to
understand for everyone, unlike WW8, OOXML, ODF, and others.

BTW, Joel: I have no problem with whiteboard renames, though if you
could please:

1) Send a mail to this list when you did rename them and

2) Do it with a script, so for the casual developer the rename is more
or less atomic

That would be excellent and make our lives much easier. :-)


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/

[Libreoffice-qa] Call for testing: Writer paragraph splits/joins

2014-07-14 Thread Bjoern Michaelsen
Hi all,

I recently pushed a few canges that try to unwind one of the smaller Gordian
Knots in Writer(*), to get rid of a horrible old implementation that nobody
dared to touch. The new implementation isnt fancy at all (yet), but at least 
should
pave the way for further cleaning up the code, which I plan to do as we go.

For the time being however, as this is pretty low-level stuff, I ask those who
are testing master/dailies to please also have a look at the behaviour of:

- bookmarks
- redlines (change tracking)
- cursors (admittedly hardly testable in the UI)
- paragraph- and character-bound objects

esp. when splitting or joining a paragraph (read: insert a newline in the
middle, or e.g. press backspace at the start of a paragraph.

Thanks!

Best,

Bjoern

(*) 
https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/gitweb?p=core.git;a=history;f=sw/source/core/doc/docbm.cxx;h=032daa849bdb282f55a1d30279f4ba464c720a34;hb=33fd0d8ae6a6b4e5226991e39fe755d84cb78280
___
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] LibreOffice QA Meeting and World Cup Party -- Wednesday!

2014-07-14 Thread K-J LibreOffice

Hi Robinson,
Am 14.07.2014 09:05, schrieb Robinson Tryon:
[...]


We have a Redmine project for 'QA' now, so all of you slackers who
have been doing useless things like triaging bugs and updating the
wiki should take a quick moment to run over and create an account so I
can assign you TODO items  (and, coincidentally, YOU can assign ME
some todo items as well... :-)
https://redmine.documentfoundation.org



Can't see a project QA in Redmine:
https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/projects

[...]

--
Grüße
k-j

Member of TheDocumentFoundation
http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/members/
http://de.libreoffice.org
http://wiki.documentfoundation.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] [tdf-discuss] Intervention

2014-07-14 Thread Sophie
Le 14/07/2014 09:10, jean-christophe manciot a écrit :
 Hello everyone,
 
 I've been aware of the following situation for a long time in the bug
 report forum, but I thought it would improve over time. Since it
 hasn't changed at all, I feel I have to blow the whistle on this.
 
 As I have already written in a specific thread, here's the situation:

Could you point to that thread? I didn't see it on the QA list
 
 1) Almost all bug reports checkcers don't even consider bug reports
 when they can't get the original file(s);

I don't think they don't consider it, it's just very difficult to
reproduce a bug without the original condition of the document producing
it. I don't know what amount of triage you're doing, but most of the
time, as a triager having the original document let you look into it and
try to understand how the user meet it.
 
 2) The same people mark bug reports as Resolved - Invalid / Not A
 Bug even when they are unable to confirm or deny them for whatever
 reason: no original file, different environment than the reporter, ...

could you give bug numbers please, so we (QA members) can have a look at
them.
 
 3) It is not always possible for the bug reporters to hand over their
 original file(s), for many different reasons that are beyond the scope
 of this thread (confidentiality, legal concerns and so on...).

there is most of the time a way to remove the confidential data and if
the bug is serious enough to provide the doc directly to developers.
 
 I believe it is always possible for the checkers to trust the
 reporters and follow the steps to reproduce on their own material
 first; if they can't do that, they probably should ask
 themselves about their true motivations in this forum. 

I found what you say not fair for our QA members, they are doing their
best to triage hundreds or reports each week.
It is rare that
 the reporters use tricky configurations with tricky files and so on.

Each way of work is different, each configuration may have their own
settings depending on the company or the work.

 Moreover, in case these steps are unclear, the reporters are usually
 available to clarify their point, otherwise they would not have spent
 their time in the first place.*Only then* can some files be uploaded
 to check some very uncommon settings or the report be marked as
 invalid or whatever is the most appropriate.

No, it's exactly the contrary, the more the bug is complete and
reproducible with the document attached, the less the triager will spend
time to reproduce and detail the bug.
 
 If the checkers continue to become more and more inflexible on this
 file issue, the risks are that some reporters will probably drop
 their cases and their involvement in this forum; the related bugs will
 remain within LO for a long time...

Again, can you please point to bug numbers where you see bugs wrongly
marked as invalid. The first work of a triager is to reproduce the bug
to confirm it. If he can't confirm or reproduce it, it's because there
is not enough information, or the specific document is missing. If his
configuration is different (most of the time he has Linux and the bug is
Windows or Mac), he requests for another member to triage the bug. Our
irc channel is full of these requests, even the QA list.
 
 Is this what the checkers and LO community really need?

I'm ccing the QA list, please follow up on this list if you want to
discuss our triaging work.

Kind regards
Sophie

___
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] LibreOffice QA Meeting and World Cup Party -- Wednesday!

2014-07-14 Thread Robinson Tryon
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:48 AM, K-J LibreOffice k...@libreoffice.org wrote:
 Hi Robinson,
 Am 14.07.2014 09:05, schrieb Robinson Tryon:
 We have a Redmine project for 'QA' now...

 Can't see a project QA in Redmine:
 https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/projects

Should be fixed -- I had to make the project public :-)

--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] Whiteboard Consistency

2014-07-14 Thread Jay Philips
Hi Miklos,

I mis-wrote in my last email, as i only do writer bug triaging, so
luckily ww8 hasnt been used to mislead anyone. :)

Regards,
Jay Philips

On 07/14/2014 12:44 PM, Miklos Vajna wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:58:56AM +0400, Jay Philips philip...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:
 I have been using ww8 to cover all the doc/xls/etc. as i saw Stahl use
 it in one of his comments. I saw Joren using odf, so i've been using
 that sometimes. I dont see much benefit in breaking odf down into
 individual odf extensions as we can already limit queries by application.
 
 WW8 is just WinWord 8, i.e. what Microsoft calls [MS-DOC], using ww8
 to refer to xls/ppt is misleading.
 
 Maybe just use the extension for all the cases? That's easy to
 understand for everyone, unlike WW8, OOXML, ODF, and others.
 
 BTW, Joel: I have no problem with whiteboard renames, though if you
 could please:
 
 1) Send a mail to this list when you did rename them and
 
 2) Do it with a script, so for the casual developer the rename is more
 or less atomic
 
 That would be excellent and make our lives much easier. :-)
 
 
 
 ___
 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/


Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Anybody got a printer and an envelope

2014-07-14 Thread Marc Paré

Hi Jay,

Le 2014-07-13 23:08, Jay Philips a écrit :

Hi All,

Users trying to print '#10 envelope' on any printer (Brother [77277],
Epson [75449], Canon [52926], etc [64966]) are having problems, so if
anybody can test this out, we can close these 4 bugs. The user in bug
77277 has stated that it works correctly in AOO 4.1, so whomever tests
it, please do test against it as well. One commenter has stated the
behaviour is there going back to 3.5. It would be good to import the AOO
code into LibO, if it is fixed there.

Anyone with a printer can also check out bug 75803, which is about
problems printing in portrait mode.


Done and posted. Seems to work on my setup.

Marc

--
Marc Paré
m...@marcpare.com
http://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.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] [tdf-discuss] Intervention

2014-07-14 Thread Bjoern Michaelsen
Hi, 

just to quickly expand on that:

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 02:35:43PM +0200, Sophie wrote:
  I believe it is always possible for the checkers to trust the
  reporters and follow the steps to reproduce on their own material
  first; if they can't do that, they probably should ask
  themselves about their true motivations in this forum. 
 
 I found what you say not fair for our QA members, they are doing their
 best to triage hundreds or reports each week.
 It is rare that
  the reporters use tricky configurations with tricky files and so on.
 
 Each way of work is different, each configuration may have their own
 settings depending on the company or the work.

Pragmatically, if the bug is not reproducable by a QA triager (that is: someone
else than the reporter), it will also not be reproducable by a developer.
Without that, the bug cant be fixed really (for a fix also cannot be verified).
A bug report that is not fixable is by itself unfortunately not of much value
to the project.

As such, we need the reporter to find a way to create a confirmed reproduction
scenario. In fact, this is the small contribution (by the reporter) that helps
enabling a much bigger contribution (the fix, done by a developer).

With development resource being limited (they always are), they will -- all
other things being equal -- naturally and effectively be used on the most
well-triaged issues.

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] Anybody got a printer and an envelope

2014-07-14 Thread Jay Philips
Hi Marc,

Thanks for looking into it, but unfortunately you need to check the
print dialog to confirm it. :)

Regards,
Jay Philips

On 07/14/2014 05:51 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
 Hi Jay,
 
 Le 2014-07-13 23:08, Jay Philips a écrit :
 Hi All,

 Users trying to print '#10 envelope' on any printer (Brother [77277],
 Epson [75449], Canon [52926], etc [64966]) are having problems, so if
 anybody can test this out, we can close these 4 bugs. The user in bug
 77277 has stated that it works correctly in AOO 4.1, so whomever tests
 it, please do test against it as well. One commenter has stated the
 behaviour is there going back to 3.5. It would be good to import the AOO
 code into LibO, if it is fixed there.

 Anyone with a printer can also check out bug 75803, which is about
 problems printing in portrait mode.
 
 Done and posted. Seems to work on my setup.
 
 Marc
 
___
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] [tdf-discuss] Intervention

2014-07-14 Thread bfoman
Hi!
From my experience asking for an example file is the best way to triage for
following reasons:
- saves time - you can download the attachment and check it in different
builds right away - important with current backlog in Unconfirmed bugs
- reproducible case - sometimes when you follow the STRs and create document
from scratch the bug can be gone.
Users' files can have their history - be created in different build, envs,
corrupted etc. So asking for a file is a best way to receive verified test
case.
- involve the reporter - some people tend to use Bugzilla as file and forget
system. Needinfo stats tell a story...
Bug reports with attachments are more interesting than those without them.
Some reporters do even screencasts or special STR graphics to help the
triagers. IMHO there is no need to panic that most triagers ask for them. 
Overall I think this is a good policy and reporters should be educated how
good bug report should look like. 
If a reporter cannot spend few minutes to attach a file or make a
confidential one into a public document (by search and replace strings - if
that makes bug still reproducible), then how can he demand a fix? This
cannot be made without a reproducible test case.
BTW: Mr Manciot is active in Wireshark Bugzilla, so should be accustomed
that good bug report needs attachment. LO needs users' files as much as
Wireshark example frame captures... 
Best regards.
P.S.
As for bugs closed as Invalid or Worksforme - there are defined QA documents
which describe how this process should look like. See
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage or
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugReport. Most triagers respect
them, but those rules are, well, more guidance than a strict policy.
LibreOffice is powered by a team of volunteers, every bug is confirmed
(triaged) by human beings who mostly give their time for free. Some people
see things from different perspective and don't like to babysit stagnant
issues. 




--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-tdf-discuss-Intervention-tp4115537p4115583.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] [tdf-discuss] Intervention

2014-07-14 Thread Jay Philips
Hi All,

I have found that asking for a document is the best way to get closest
to what the user is experiencing and what they are writing the bug for.
If they report the bug on windows, i load up windows to confirm it and
then also check if its on linux as well. Sometimes the steps to
reproduce are easy enough to follow, but not every one of us are experts
in the bugs we triage, so having an example file to begin the process of
triaging saves quite alot of time. Users i've been dealing with have
been quite happy to provide an example file, while a very few have asked
that the file be kept confidential. Here is an example bug with steps to
reproduce i triaged today [81292].



Problem description:
I have a table first column alpha-numeric,crashes when sorting is ask.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Load table,
2. select table
3. sort

Current behavior: crash

Expected behavior: alpha-numeric sorting



From this example, should i waste time that i could be spending triaging
other bugs to create a table full of values in order to sort the table.
It could be possible that some small feature within the table he is
sorting is causing the crash, that i could never reproduce because i
dont have his file. In the user's most recent comment, he states that if
he deletes the text from the last column, it wont crash. No way i could
reproduce such a thing if i created an example file myself.

I just submitted a bug today [81351] that crashes calc from as early as
3.6, simply by undo-ing a sort. It is possible that this may not have
happened with another file, so i submitted the one i was working on, in
order to speed up triaging and hopefully fixing. We have ~1k bugs to
still triage and the quicker we are able to triage a bug, the faster we
can confirm/close it and move on to the next one.

Just my two cents. ;)

Regards,
Jay Philips

On 07/15/2014 01:48 AM, bfoman wrote:
 Hi!
 From my experience asking for an example file is the best way to triage for
 following reasons:
 - saves time - you can download the attachment and check it in different
 builds right away - important with current backlog in Unconfirmed bugs
 - reproducible case - sometimes when you follow the STRs and create document
 from scratch the bug can be gone.
 Users' files can have their history - be created in different build, envs,
 corrupted etc. So asking for a file is a best way to receive verified test
 case.
 - involve the reporter - some people tend to use Bugzilla as file and forget
 system. Needinfo stats tell a story...
 Bug reports with attachments are more interesting than those without them.
 Some reporters do even screencasts or special STR graphics to help the
 triagers. IMHO there is no need to panic that most triagers ask for them. 
 Overall I think this is a good policy and reporters should be educated how
 good bug report should look like. 
 If a reporter cannot spend few minutes to attach a file or make a
 confidential one into a public document (by search and replace strings - if
 that makes bug still reproducible), then how can he demand a fix? This
 cannot be made without a reproducible test case.
 BTW: Mr Manciot is active in Wireshark Bugzilla, so should be accustomed
 that good bug report needs attachment. LO needs users' files as much as
 Wireshark example frame captures... 
 Best regards.
 P.S.
 As for bugs closed as Invalid or Worksforme - there are defined QA documents
 which describe how this process should look like. See
 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage or
 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugReport. Most triagers respect
 them, but those rules are, well, more guidance than a strict policy.
 LibreOffice is powered by a team of volunteers, every bug is confirmed
 (triaged) by human beings who mostly give their time for free. Some people
 see things from different perspective and don't like to babysit stagnant
 issues. 
 
 
 
 
 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-tdf-discuss-Intervention-tp4115537p4115583.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: 

[Libreoffice-qa] Updated Builds

2014-07-14 Thread Jay Philips
Hi All,

I normally update my daily builds of 4.2, 4.3 and master once a week,
but unfortunately they havent been updated since the 8th or 9th for
Linux-rpm_deb-x86@45-TDF. Any help would be appreciated.

-- 
Regards,
Jay Philips
___
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] [tdf-discuss] Intervention

2014-07-14 Thread Joel Madero
I also replied to this off list. We are consistent and that's good ;)
Ultimately, we're not going to change our workflow. It's up to a user to
report with clear steps and a simple test document - else it's just a
waste of our time. Glad we all think alike :-D


Best,
Joel

On 07/14/2014 05:38 PM, Jay Philips wrote:
 Hi All,

 I have found that asking for a document is the best way to get closest
 to what the user is experiencing and what they are writing the bug for.
 If they report the bug on windows, i load up windows to confirm it and
 then also check if its on linux as well. Sometimes the steps to
 reproduce are easy enough to follow, but not every one of us are experts
 in the bugs we triage, so having an example file to begin the process of
 triaging saves quite alot of time. Users i've been dealing with have
 been quite happy to provide an example file, while a very few have asked
 that the file be kept confidential. Here is an example bug with steps to
 reproduce i triaged today [81292].

 

 Problem description:
 I have a table first column alpha-numeric,crashes when sorting is ask.
 Steps to reproduce:
 1. Load table,
 2. select table
 3. sort

 Current behavior: crash

 Expected behavior: alpha-numeric sorting

 

 From this example, should i waste time that i could be spending triaging
 other bugs to create a table full of values in order to sort the table.
 It could be possible that some small feature within the table he is
 sorting is causing the crash, that i could never reproduce because i
 dont have his file. In the user's most recent comment, he states that if
 he deletes the text from the last column, it wont crash. No way i could
 reproduce such a thing if i created an example file myself.

 I just submitted a bug today [81351] that crashes calc from as early as
 3.6, simply by undo-ing a sort. It is possible that this may not have
 happened with another file, so i submitted the one i was working on, in
 order to speed up triaging and hopefully fixing. We have ~1k bugs to
 still triage and the quicker we are able to triage a bug, the faster we
 can confirm/close it and move on to the next one.

 Just my two cents. ;)

 Regards,
 Jay Philips

 On 07/15/2014 01:48 AM, bfoman wrote:
 Hi!
 From my experience asking for an example file is the best way to triage for
 following reasons:
 - saves time - you can download the attachment and check it in different
 builds right away - important with current backlog in Unconfirmed bugs
 - reproducible case - sometimes when you follow the STRs and create document
 from scratch the bug can be gone.
 Users' files can have their history - be created in different build, envs,
 corrupted etc. So asking for a file is a best way to receive verified test
 case.
 - involve the reporter - some people tend to use Bugzilla as file and forget
 system. Needinfo stats tell a story...
 Bug reports with attachments are more interesting than those without them.
 Some reporters do even screencasts or special STR graphics to help the
 triagers. IMHO there is no need to panic that most triagers ask for them. 
 Overall I think this is a good policy and reporters should be educated how
 good bug report should look like. 
 If a reporter cannot spend few minutes to attach a file or make a
 confidential one into a public document (by search and replace strings - if
 that makes bug still reproducible), then how can he demand a fix? This
 cannot be made without a reproducible test case.
 BTW: Mr Manciot is active in Wireshark Bugzilla, so should be accustomed
 that good bug report needs attachment. LO needs users' files as much as
 Wireshark example frame captures... 
 Best regards.
 P.S.
 As for bugs closed as Invalid or Worksforme - there are defined QA documents
 which describe how this process should look like. See
 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage or
 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugReport. Most triagers respect
 them, but those rules are, well, more guidance than a strict policy.
 LibreOffice is powered by a team of volunteers, every bug is confirmed
 (triaged) by human beings who mostly give their time for free. Some people
 see things from different perspective and don't like to babysit stagnant
 issues. 




 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-tdf-discuss-Intervention-tp4115537p4115583.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