Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Joel Madero schrieb:

Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements.


Hi,

if you answer to my posting 26.02.2013 21:23 you should refer to 



I am thinking about something very simple. Who adds his name in "QA 
Contact" tells that he will do some efforts to gain all required info 
(own contribution and invitations to others) before fixing process can 
be started. Nothing else.


So anybody else knows that'enough to contribute his particular 
knowledge, the QA Contact will become active if the incoming info is not 
sufficent.
And some details what might be useful to understand that are listed in 
Wiki Text mentioned above.


I do not wan to see a name in "QA-Contact" with the meaning "keep away, 
I will do all necessary   (for that he should ASSIGN the bug to himself)"


CU


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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Petr Mladek]

Joel Madero píše v Pá 01. 03. 2013 v 09:03 -0800:
> 
> I would not enforce this but I would make it optional. By
> other words, I
> would take inspiration from the developers side where the
> "random" names
> in assigned fields just created false feeling that the
> developer was
> going to work on the bug soon.
> 
> I would do it the following way:
> 
> 1. If a triager is heavily interested into particular bug,
> have it under
>control, wants to provide more information when needed, it
> would be
>great to put the name into the "QA Contact".
> 
> 
> My only concern is that if we have a QA Contact name there - we can be
> relatively sure that the bug was prioritized which, as we move
> forward, we're trying to clean up priorities so that we can move away
> from all these random lists that we have. Without that info, we'd need
> to consider an alternative to that issue (maybe whiteboard status
> "Prioritized")

It is an interesting idea but I would not mix these two things. I
personally think that we want the prioritization but I am not convinced
that "QA contact" would work. Enforcing "QA contact" might cause
troubles as mentioned in the previous mail. So, mixing these two things
together might cause troubles as well :-)

You are right that making sure that the priority and severity is
reasonable is not easy. Adding whiteboard flag is one solution but it is
a bit painful, so I would prefer to avoid it in the long term. We might
use it only for old bugs. Well, we need to propagate the prioritization
rules first to make most triagers aware of them and actually agreed on
them.

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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Joel Madero]

> I would not enforce this but I would make it optional. By other words, I
> would take inspiration from the developers side where the "random" names
> in assigned fields just created false feeling that the developer was
> going to work on the bug soon.
>
> I would do it the following way:
>
> 1. If a triager is heavily interested into particular bug, have it under
>control, wants to provide more information when needed, it would be
>great to put the name into the "QA Contact".
>

My only concern is that if we have a QA Contact name there - we can be
relatively sure that the bug was prioritized which, as we move forward,
we're trying to clean up priorities so that we can move away from all these
random lists that we have. Without that info, we'd need to consider an
alternative to that issue (maybe whiteboard status "Prioritized")


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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Petr Mladek]

Joel Madero píše v Út 26. 02. 2013 v 12:23 -0800:
> Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements. I think that what
> it says is "this person prioritized the bug and did initial testing".
> Personally if you say that any person who adds their name to there has
> become indefinitely responsible for a vast number of tasks including
> but not limited to bt and bibisecting, it will scare away valuable QA
> people. 

Another problem is when the person stop being active or is busy with
some other stuff for few weeks.

Note that many people contribute when they have free time and it depends
on how the life goes. Students have exams, people might fall in love,
get some some new responsibilities, get sick.

> I think that the first QA person who changes the status should add
> their name. If additional things are requested that QA person will
> either:
> 
> 1) Do the additional testing themselves
> 2) Find someone else to do it

I would not enforce this but I would make it optional. By other words, I
would take inspiration from the developers side where the "random" names
in assigned fields just created false feeling that the developer was
going to work on the bug soon.

I would do it the following way:

1. If a triager is heavily interested into particular bug, have it under
   control, wants to provide more information when needed, it would be
   great to put the name into the "QA Contact".

2. If a triager is interested into a bug but does not feel like becoming
   responsible for it, it would be great to put the name into CC. He/she
   will get mails about new comments and would be able to react faster.

3. If a triager just add a comment with some observation, it should be
   enough to just leave the comment. The name is recorded, so anyone
   could add it into CC and ask for more details later.

The last point is questionable. It would be great to have all commenters
in CC but it would be a nightmare for the most active triagers. They
would get too many mails from bugzilla. Many mails are not that
interesting if you are not expert in the given area and you mentioned
all your findings in your comment :-)


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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi,


2013/2/26 Joel Madero 

> Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements.
>

​Me too...



> I think that what it says is "this person prioritized the bug and did
> initial testing". Personally if you say that any person who adds their name
> to there has become indefinitely responsible for a vast number of tasks
> including but not limited to bt and bibisecting, it will scare away
> valuable QA people.
>

​+1 Someone without Linux can't do bisect (up to now)


>
> I think that the first QA person who changes the status should add their
> name. If additional things are requested that QA person will either:
>
> 1) Do the additional testing themselves
>
> 2) Find someone else to do it
>

3) Thinks that his testing is enough ;)

>
> One good thing about this method is if we see QA members names there we
> can assume (mostly logically) that prioritizing was done and thus in the
> long run we can abandon all the lists we have and just go by the
> prioritization of the bug which would be amazing.
>

+1 if we introduce a "take" for QA. It's ... annoying to do that manually
:)

>
> Thoughts?
>
> 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/


Yours,

Florian
___
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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Joel Madero]

Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements. I think that what it
says is "this person prioritized the bug and did initial testing".
Personally if you say that any person who adds their name to there has
become indefinitely responsible for a vast number of tasks including but
not limited to bt and bibisecting, it will scare away valuable QA people.

I think that the first QA person who changes the status should add their
name. If additional things are requested that QA person will either:

1) Do the additional testing themselves

2) Find someone else to do it

One good thing about this method is if we see QA members names there we can
assume (mostly logically) that prioritizing was done and thus in the long
run we can abandon all the lists we have and just go by the prioritization
of the bug which would be amazing.

Thoughts?

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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Rainer Bielefeld]

bfo schrieb:


Adding user (by herself) to QA Contact field would indicate, that this QA
person is actively working on the bug and is responsible either for


Hi,

I added a draft with these ideas in the Wiki



Please follow up if you think it's necessary!

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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[bfo]

Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote
> I don't think so, and I don't see any benefit what we can have from 
> adding people there.

Hi.
Adding user (by herself) to QA Contact field would indicate, that this QA
person is actively working on the bug and is responsible either for
(examples):
- gathering more informations, when QA Wanted action is triggered by the
developer
- delivering BT
- creating bug summary when nominated for HardHacks
- is available to check the bug when it is platform specific
- janitor the bug
- will give assistance to the developer when needed
Adding people just to the CC list do not indicate what is going on with the
bug on QA side.
Best regards.




--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Should-we-use-the-QA-Contact-field-tp4008500p4009939.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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Roman Eisele schrieb:


Is there now a consensus, or a tendency towards a
consensus, that we actually should use the “QA Contact” field?


Hi,

I don't think so, and I don't see any benefit what we can have from 
adding people there.


I know that Joel adds himself for some tracking needs
,
I do no know details.

Currently I can't see any benefit from using that field, I even did not 
know that we have a problem for what that field can be a solution?!


I recommend not to use QA Contact field before
1. You have a problem
2. discussed and agreed on a solution
3. Added some hints in the Wiki
4. Published that.

If everybody indulges private likings that will make queries unreliable.


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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Mas]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Roman Eisele  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> recently I noticed that some of us start actually using the “QA Contact”
> field, which was neglected for a long time. So I think I must have missed
> something. Is there now a consensus, or a tendency towards a consensus,
> that we actually should use the “QA Contact” field? Should I put myself
> (actually, my mail address ;-) into that field if I “take” a bug for QA,
> i.e. when I feel as the (most) responsible bugwrangler for a particular
> bug? I will be happy to do so, I just want to know if this is recommended
> now ...
>
> Thank you for any hints, and best regards --
>
> Roman
>


I will assign my name to the QA if I am actively working the ticket. or if
I am researching the issue more. This will let others know the ticket is
being look into by the QA

hope this helps
-- 
--
Masekela Walls
Web Security Analyst | Senior Server Administrator
Powserve.com / Gemini ISP Networks
___
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] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Roman Eisele]

Hi all,

recently I noticed that some of us start actually using the “QA Contact” 
field, which was neglected for a long time. So I think I must have 
missed something. Is there now a consensus, or a tendency towards a 
consensus, that we actually should use the “QA Contact” field? Should I 
put myself (actually, my mail address ;-) into that field if I “take” a 
bug for QA, i.e. when I feel as the (most) responsible bugwrangler for a 
particular bug? I will be happy to do so, I just want to know if this is 
recommended now ...


Thank you for any hints, and best regards --

Roman
___
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/