Re: [Libreoffice-qa] NEEDINFO Status Wiki
Joel Madero píše v Út 14. 05. 2013 v 11:04 -0700: Hi All, I made a pretty basic wiki page for NEEDINFO status. This was per It is great that we are moving forward again with this problem. Rainer's suggestion that we keep the FDO response shorter (although it won't be one line) and explain the policy -- I hate using this word now :-/ https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FDO/NEEDINFO The page looks good. To my taste, there is too long explanation in front of the page before the real description and processes. But I understand why you did it this way and I am not brave enough to do it shorter :-) I have updated the NEEDINFO definition. The original text was too cryptic for me. Also it was too oriented on the 180 days magic date. Feel to correct it but please try to use less juridical language :-) Also I added section what should be done when the information is provided. Feel free to update it as well. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] NEEDINFO Status Wiki
On 05/15/2013 02:14 AM, Petr Mladek wrote: Joel Madero píše v Út 14. 05. 2013 v 11:04 -0700: Hi All, I made a pretty basic wiki page for NEEDINFO status. This was per It is great that we are moving forward again with this problem. Rainer's suggestion that we keep the FDO response shorter (although it won't be one line) and explain the policy -- I hate using this word now :-/ https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FDO/NEEDINFO The page looks good. To my taste, there is too long explanation in front of the page before the real description and processes. But I understand why you did it this way and I am not brave enough to do it shorter :-) I actually fully agree with this, I will take a stab at shortening it. I have updated the NEEDINFO definition. The original text was too cryptic for me. Also it was too oriented on the 180 days magic date. Feel to correct it but please try to use less juridical language :-) Also I added section what should be done when the information is provided. Feel free to update it as well. Thanks! 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] NEEDINFO Status Wiki
Hi All, I made a pretty basic wiki page for NEEDINFO status. This was per Rainer's suggestion that we keep the FDO response shorter (although it won't be one line) and explain the policy -- I hate using this word now :-/ https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FDO/NEEDINFO Please feel free to add to it, we need some links on the bottom that I didn't look for yet, if someone has them handy feel free to add. Also if I need to clean something again, just let me know. I want to try a test run before Friday. Best, Joel P.S. Robinson - is location of this appropriate? You're my go to wiki organization guru :) -- *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] NEEDINFO Status Wiki
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FDO/NEEDINFO ... P.S. Robinson - is location of this appropriate? You're my go to wiki organization guru :) So the base for Bugzilla stuff is typically QA/Bugzilla. The field here is labeled Status, but internally named bug_status. People are most familiar with the labels, so I think it best to use those. Should we pluralize as Statuses or just leave as Status? I initially put the 'Component' field as QA/Bugzilla/Components/xxx, but now considering our other fields I think I might move those under QA/Bugzilla/Fields and use the exact label name of the field (So Component/xxx, Status/NEEDINFO, Keywords/zzz, etc..). That'll require a minor URL change in the BSA code, but nothing major. tl;dr is, here's my suggested URL: QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status/NEEDINFO Oh -- and one quick note: There's already a little blurb about NEEDINFO stuff on QA/Bugzilla/Fields that can probably be folded into this page. Joel -- If I move the page, could you fold-in that blurb? Thanks, --R ___ 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] NEEDINFO Status Wiki
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Robinson Tryon bishop.robin...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FDO/NEEDINFO ... P.S. Robinson - is location of this appropriate? You're my go to wiki organization guru :) So the base for Bugzilla stuff is typically QA/Bugzilla. The field here is labeled Status, but internally named bug_status. People are most familiar with the labels, so I think it best to use those. Should we pluralize as Statuses or just leave as Status? I initially put the 'Component' field as QA/Bugzilla/Components/xxx, but now considering our other fields I think I might move those under QA/Bugzilla/Fields and use the exact label name of the field (So Component/xxx, Status/NEEDINFO, Keywords/zzz, etc..). That'll require a minor URL change in the BSA code, but nothing major. tl;dr is, here's my suggested URL: QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status/NEEDINFO Oh -- and one quick note: There's already a little blurb about NEEDINFO stuff on QA/Bugzilla/Fields that can probably be folded into this page. Joel -- If I move the page, could you fold-in that blurb? Will do. If you're okay with waiting for a major rework again, I'd like to focus just on NEEDNIFO first, then tackle the other stuff listed in the email :) 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] NEEDINFO Status Wiki
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: Will do. If you're okay with waiting for a major rework again, I'd like to focus just on NEEDNIFO first, then tackle the other stuff listed in the email :) Sure, sure. I'll move the page now. I'll ping you when I'm done --R ___ 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] NEEDINFO Status
After thinking about it I agree. The message should probably be done on closing the bug as INVALID or adding a new status of PLEASETEST (I am not hugely in favor of this, we already have too many status' IMO). But for more experienced triagers there's no harm in letting the user know on marking it as NEEDINFO that the bug will be auto closed after 30 days. No need to make this a big deal, just for those of us who have been working with LibO for awhile we can add the friendly message. We don't want to get too strict or mechanical for many reasons, two that come to mind is pissing off our user base because we sound like robots and also making it more difficult for new members to get involved. We should try to finalize this before our next conference call so we can move on to more important stuff :) Joel P.S. Also, is there an ongoing agenda for the next conference? On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Petr Mladek pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Rainer Bielefeld píše v So 25. 08. 2012 v 11:30 +0200: Joel Madero schrieb: when we actually put a bug into NEEDINFO status we put a comment that has a small blurb on our procedure. Something like we have put this bug in NEEDINFO status because we need you to provide.we will leave the bug in this status for 6 months I recommend that we agree to a standard sentence like This bug will be closed after 14 days if requested information will not be provided. Additional information concerning the reasons for this proceeding and how you can reopen this Bug you can find at jttp://...Wiki... , to be inserted by copy /paste from Wiki. I appreciate you carefulness and sense for details. Well, I am still not convinced that we need to warn people before. I understand the point but it has some drawbacks: + reporters might get angry that we force them to answer within 30 days and then do not fix bug several months; and we are not able to fix all 5000 bugs within one month + the standard message is yet another thing that bug triagers should memorize; it makes the process more complicated and harder to learn + it is another message that makes the report longer and harder to read I still thing that the best solution would be to tune the closing message. It has to be short, explanatory, friendly, encouraging. I suggest something like: We would like to solve this bug but nobody has provided the requested information during last 30 days. We can't move forward and close this bug for now. Feel free to reopen it together with the needed details. This can be done automatically, so nobody need to memorize it. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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] NEEDINFO Status
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 09:40:38AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: I like the PLEASETEST status but I know that Bjoern had some reservations about adding yet another whiteboard status. What would be the policy if we did this, changing to INVALID after 14 (or whatever # we agree on) days and then add the whiteboard status of PLEASETEST so that we can query it out. I have no reservations about using the whiteboard, but rather the bug status PLEASETEST (instead of INVALID). that bug state is not documented in: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html and I personally would assume it to mean a state after RESOLVED/FIXED and before VERIFIED, meaning I think I fixed this issue, but need someone to test the solution. Strangely, although the state exists in bugs.fdo neither us, nor any other project has any bug in that state. So I would avoid using this state, as is confusing in itself and would need explaination. 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] NEEDINFO Status
Joel Madero schrieb: when we actually put a bug into NEEDINFO status we put a comment that has a small blurb on our procedure. Something like we have put this bug in NEEDINFO status because we need you to provide.we will leave the bug in this status for 6 months Hi, that's to long. Be sure, the info provider will answer within a week or never. So it's common sense that a bug can be closed after 10-14 days if there is no answer and if it can be expected that it will not be possible to reproduce the bug with acceptable costs without denied info. I use Reminderfox and add a reminder (10 days later) for all Bugs I set to NEEDINFO, after 10 days (or later, workload ...) I close those bugs INVALID if there was no reply. But sometimes there is additional discussion, users try to reproduce and so on and such bugs sink into oblivion. For those bugs Florinan' suggested PLEASETEST-reminder (what has not been accepted) might have had the advantage that a query would have been very easy. I recommend that we agree to a standard sentence like This bug will be closed after 14 days if requested information will not be provided. Additional information concerning the reasons for this proceeding and how you can reopen this Bug you can find at jttp://...Wiki... , to be inserted by copy /paste from Wiki. I strongly agree with Joel's suggestion to have a time limit in the Comment related to NEEDINFO status change. 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] NEEDINFO Status
Hi Bjoern, Am 25.08.2012 14:21, schrieb Bjoern Michaelsen: snip However, while 10 days is usually enough, I would extend to maybe 30 days to allow for things like reporter on vacation etc. Counterargument: reporter receives a mail. If the bugreport is important to the reporter he will answer the request (or put back on submission). Regards Jochen ___ 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] NEEDINFO Status
On 08/25/2012 02:30 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Joel Madero schrieb: when we actually put a bug into NEEDINFO status we put a comment that has a small blurb on our procedure. Something like we have put this bug in NEEDINFO status because we need you to provide.we will leave the bug in this status for 6 months Hi, that's to long. Be sure, the info provider will answer within a week or never. So it's common sense that a bug can be closed after 10-14 days if there is no answer and if it can be expected that it will not be possible to reproduce the bug with acceptable costs without denied info. I use Reminderfox and add a reminder (10 days later) for all Bugs I set to NEEDINFO, after 10 days (or later, workload ...) I close those bugs INVALID if there was no reply. But sometimes there is additional discussion, users try to reproduce and so on and such bugs sink into oblivion. For those bugs Florinan' suggested PLEASETEST-reminder (what has not been accepted) might have had the advantage that a query would have been very easy. I recommend that we agree to a standard sentence like This bug will be closed after 14 days if requested information will not be provided. Additional information concerning the reasons for this proceeding and how you can reopen this Bug you can find at jttp://...Wiki... , to be inserted by copy /paste from Wiki. I strongly agree with Joel's suggestion to have a time limit in the Comment related to NEEDINFO status change. Best regards Rainer Personally I think 14 days is a bit short. Someone goes on vacation for a couple weeks and come back to their bug going from UNCONFIRMED - NEEDINFO - INVALID. I'd be more inclined to say 30 days but if 14 ends up being the number, that's fine. I like the PLEASETEST status but I know that Bjoern had some reservations about adding yet another whiteboard status. What would be the policy if we did this, changing to INVALID after 14 (or whatever # we agree on) days and then add the whiteboard status of PLEASETEST so that we can query it out. Best Regards, 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] NEEDINFO Status
Hi All, More input on this morning's conversation. Maybe an idea would be that when we actually put a bug into NEEDINFO status we put a comment that has a small blurb on our procedure. Something like we have put this bug in NEEDINFO status because we need you to provide.we will leave the bug in this status for 6 months at which time we'll close the bug as INVALID. If your bug is closed as INVALID after 6 months and you still experience it, please attach needed information and reopen the bug as UNCONFIRMED. Just a thought. Best Regards, 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] NEEDINFO Status and Keyword
Rainer Bielefeld píše v Ne 13. 11. 2011 v 18:23 +0100: Hello, i hope I summarized latest results correctly on https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Whiteboard and https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA-FAQ#How_do_I_find_information_I_need.3F. I like the split into the two queries. It is easier to maintain and acceptable to use. Best Regards, Petr ___ 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/
