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 The bibiect40 package contains everything in 3.5 so using 3.5 is outdated.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] Bibisect Whiteboard Status
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#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. If the suggestion is not right, then my understanding of the bibisect packages is in urgent need of correction. Help! (*) 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? The use of fewer whiteboard values hereafter will make the old values useless for queries anyway, right? 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bibisect Whiteboard Status
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#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 :) (*) 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, 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. 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? 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Bibisect Whiteboard Status
I finally got around to updating the wiki: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Whiteboard#Bibisect Let's not use all the other options now and stick with: bibisected PreBibisect bibisectrequest I think that's more than sufficient - even bibisectrequest is a bit redundant as a regression within a release after 3.5.4 should be sufficient to tell us that a bibisect could be used but, we'll keep the status unless there are objections :) So again, no more bibisect40 and all that. Instead what might be nice is when you leave a comment just saying what bibisect package you used so that we know (daily from what day? bibisected40 package or the tagged package. Also, can someone update the how to bibisect link to show the daily builds? I haven't used it yet so not comfortable updating it. Thanks all! Joel ___ 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 05/25/2013 12:56 PM, dk...@torfree.net wrote: Quoting Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com: Also, can someone update the how to bibisect link to show the daily builds? I haven't used it yet so not comfortable updating it. I am working on it. Bjoern Michaelson has said he will review my changes to keep me on the straght and narrow. Terry. +1, Thanks Terry! Best, Joel ___ 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/
