Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
Pedro wrote > There is no point in triaging again. The QA work is done. Now only Devs > can fix or don't fix confirmed bugs. > Assigning to someone is not a good idea. It seems like that person is > going to act on the problem when in fact he/she didn't select the issue. David Tardon wrote > I think explicitly setting a bug to ASSIGNED is pretty much pointless. > You cannot force a developer to start working on a bug just because he > has been assigned to it; on the other side, seeing that a bug is already > assigned might discourage others from taking it. Seems my post was misunderstood. My intention wasn't assigning bugs to anyone by QA people. Simply developers should change status to ASSIGNED when they are actively working on fix, leaving Assigned to as default when bug is in NEW state. Not everyone do it, some bugs have sudden NEW>FIXED transition. Also bugs are fixed without any report in the Bugzilla. You have to watch commit messages and changelogs to get the idea. This complicates work while triaging. Pedro wrote > You can not force people (especially volunteers) to fix anything they > don't feel like. > That is the nature of this project. It is frustrating but this is how it > works. > Unless you know how to code and fix the problem yourself, this is as far > as you can go. Wrote it few times already, will write it once more - you can manage bugs even in the open source project. This will be more wishful thinking (more like Please fix this in next maintenance release), but it is possible. Having release fever (core developers as firemen) is not good policy for bug fixing. I believe people would consider to fix things when there is clear indication that a fix is needed and expected sooner than later. Just put yourself in the shoes of new developer who browse 3700 NEW bugs. Impossible to pick anything. David Tardon wrote > There are only so many developers. And to fix a bug typically takes more > time than to triage it. I have a few examples already that well triaged bug is fixable within hours when it got dev attention somehow. Not general rule of course. David Tardon wrote > Similarly, setting a > confirmed bug to WONTFIX just before nobody has fixed it in a certain > period of time (if we really do not want to/cannot fix it, it should > have already been marked appropriately during triage) brings us no > positive effect (except having smaller number of opened bugs--maybe). > One negative effect that immediately comes to mind is that all the > triaging work will need to be repeated from scratch the next time > someone reports the same bug. In real life you have to triage every single bug anyway. Check for duplicates first. If you have WONTIXed bugs already (good reasoned in comments) you can triage faster by simply marking another bug as a duplicate. I am not an expert to mark any bugs as WONTFIX. This should be done by core developers. They would need to discuss new NEW bugs regularly. David Tardon wrote > Therefore, the only possible reason for a > triaging marathon like you suggested is to identify (and dispose of) > bugs already fixed in the newest release (or, preferably, master). Exactly this should be done some day. Unfortunately QA guys are too busy with Unconfirmed backlog. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Bug-Status-NEW-but-Assigned-to-Someone-Please-Change-tp4029440p4029666.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 Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
This will most definitely be discussed during our next QA call (next Friday, 1400 UTC). If you're able to join it would be great. The process clearly needs to be clarified and possibly updated. If not, I'll follow the conversation and try to summarize them during the call. Personally my opinion: Since we no longer really assign developers automatically and then ask them if they accept, I don't see a reason to keep this 500+ log of assigned but not being worked on bugs. Talking to a couple developers it's clear that they won't be working on those bugs any time soon (possibly ever). I think it screws up our stats, discourages contributors from taking on bugs that they could possibly easily fix, and just causes confusion about the status of a bug. This being said my solution would be to slowly go through the list of ASSIGNED bugs and actually find out which ones are likely to be worked on in the next 6 months by the assigned developer, if this isn't the case, change the bug back to NEW. With your help I don't think that this would take long and can go on the list of other FDO clean-up projects we have going on. For the triaging marathon, we're working on the details about a contest, it's in the works and expected date will be right around a pre-release of 4.1. The possibility of reward(s) is being discussed and we hope to get more users involved with the triaging process. Before this time we need some of these procedural questions resolved. Best Regards, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibO 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 Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
David Tardon wrote > I think explicitly setting a bug to ASSIGNED is pretty much pointless. > You cannot force a developer to start working on a bug just because he > has been assigned to it; on the other side, seeing that a bug is already > assigned might discourage others from taking it. Couldn't agree more. Here is a perfect example of an ASSIGNED bug which could (probably) already been fixed https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38451 -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Bug-Status-NEW-but-Assigned-to-Someone-Please-Change-tp4029440p4029569.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 Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
Hi, On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:46:11PM -0800, bfo wrote: > I read this data as NEW backlog - nobody is interested in those reports. > IMHO QA hard work to transform a bug into NEW state is pretty much wasted, > as I consider NEW stated bugs as ready to start fixing... There are only so many developers. And to fix a bug typically takes more time than to triage it. > We are in need of NEW triaging marathon. ASSIGN, RESOLVE or WONTFIX to clear > the room for new NEW bugs... I think explicitly setting a bug to ASSIGNED is pretty much pointless. You cannot force a developer to start working on a bug just because he has been assigned to it; on the other side, seeing that a bug is already assigned might discourage others from taking it. Similarly, setting a confirmed bug to WONTFIX just before nobody has fixed it in a certain period of time (if we really do not want to/cannot fix it, it should have already been marked appropriately during triage) brings us no positive effect (except having smaller number of opened bugs--maybe). One negative effect that immediately comes to mind is that all the triaging work will need to be repeated from scratch the next time someone reports the same bug. Therefore, the only possible reason for a triaging marathon like you suggested is to identify (and dispose of) bugs already fixed in the newest release (or, preferably, master). D. ___ 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 Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
bfo wrote > I read this data as NEW backlog - nobody is interested in those reports. > IMHO QA hard work to transform a bug into NEW state is pretty much wasted, > as I consider NEW stated bugs as ready to start fixing... > We are in need of NEW triaging marathon. ASSIGN, RESOLVE or WONTFIX to > clear the room for new NEW bugs... There is no point in triaging again. The QA work is done. Now only Devs can fix or don't fix confirmed bugs. Assigning to someone is not a good idea. It seems like that person is going to act on the problem when in fact he/she didn't select the issue. You can not force people (especially volunteers) to fix anything they don't feel like. That is the nature of this project. It is frustrating but this is how it works. Unless you know how to code and fix the problem yourself, this is as far as you can go. You should congratulate yourself on a job well done and hope that someone picks it forward... Sorry for the reality check ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Bug-Status-NEW-but-Assigned-to-Someone-Please-Change-tp4029440p4029505.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 Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
jmadero wrote > Rainer, I'll start the conversation on QA list shortly, it might move to > the next call but I think there is room for improvement here. Hi! In LibreOffice product we have: - more than 4000 bugs in NEW state - https://bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product=LibreOffice&datasets=NEW - only little more than 200 are ASSIGNED - https://bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product=LibreOffice&datasets=ASSIGNED Of those NEW bugs 3733 are assigned to libreoffice-b...@lists.freedesktop.org (Of course there is more than 800 enhancement requests, but this doesn't improve the whole picture very much.) - https://bugs.freedesktop.org/report.cgi?bug_status=NEW&cumulate=0&product=LibreOffice&x_axis_field=bug_severity&y_axis_field=assigned_to&width=600&height=350&action=wrap&format=table I read this data as NEW backlog - nobody is interested in those reports. IMHO QA hard work to transform a bug into NEW state is pretty much wasted, as I consider NEW stated bugs as ready to start fixing... We are in need of NEW triaging marathon. ASSIGN, RESOLVE or WONTFIX to clear the room for new NEW bugs... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-Bug-Status-NEW-but-Assigned-to-Someone-Please-Change-tp4029440p4029487.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 Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
> So I agree with Kohei, we should not modify this if we do not have very > good reasons with really promising prospects for benefit. Of course, if > someone has ideas here, we should discuss that (may be better on qa list?). > +1, let's take this off developer list and come up with a good solution from QA team. Apologies for moving too quickly on this and bringing it right to dev list. Rainer, I'll start the conversation on QA list shortly, it might move to the next call but I think there is room for improvement here. Best Regards, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibO 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 Status NEW but Assigned to Someone - Please Change
Kohei Yoshida schrieb: Hi all, I think I understand Joel's intention. I also have problems to find out whether a bug already is under observation of a developer (because he is in CC), that was more easy in the early time with very few developers. And I believe developers should become involved when all necessary info is in the report. So I also see some advantages (concerning queries) to add a developer to the "Assigned to" field. But on the other hand, that might discourage volunteers (for EasyHacks and similar), and developers might feel pressed to start work on that particular bug. Most engraving disadvantage of changing the current proceeding is that it is a change of the current proceeding ;-) It always takes long time with lots of discussion until new proceeding will be accepted. So I agree with Kohei, we should not modify this if we do not have very good reasons with really promising prospects for benefit. Of course, if someone has ideas here, we should discuss that (may be better on qa list?). And - Thanks to Calc Team for reliably handling the bugzilla dashboard concerning Assignee, Target, ... . This eases our (at least my) work very much. Best regards Rainer ___ 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/
