[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: helpcontent2

helpcontent2 |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) New commits: commit 006884d7928c6b32cf0bb3f48e31bbac87d1d5ea Author: Joel Madero <jmadero@gmail.com> Date: Wed Oct 26 13:02:16 2016 -0700 Updated core Project: help 578e1e320daaa82b2d3b8c0eeea84bf704

[Libreoffice-commits] help.git: source/text

source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp | 123 +- 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) New commits: commit 578e1e320daaa82b2d3b8c0eeea84bf704967939 Author: Joel Madero <jmadero@gmail.com> Date: Wed Oct 26 13:02:16 2016 -0700 tdf#

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: wrong NEEDINFO / INVALID cleaning

I see what I did wrong. That being said, the few corner cases I'm not horribly concerned about (as the first example shows4+ months with no response). I'll be more careful next time - if I ever do it again. Best, Joel On 05/09/2016 01:50 PM, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: > Hi, > > It seems

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: wrong NEEDINFO / INVALID cleaning

That would be my mistake. Apologies. On 05/09/2016 01:50 PM, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that the automatic cleaning of long standing NEEDINFO bug > reports has itself some bug. Several bug reports in NEEDINFO state are > closed as INVALID without warning comment and without a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] new keyword needUITest

On 04/27/2016 11:24 AM, Markus Mohrhard wrote: > Hey, > > can we add a new keyword needUITest to bugs that are purely in the UI? > > It would help me track bugs that can not be tested right now and would > need a test later. Done. Best, Joel ___ List

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] regression keyword

On 04/22/2016 01:23 PM, Terrence Enger wrote: > Hello, All, > > I was surprised to read in "QA/BugTriage" > ... > > Use the keyword regression if the previous minor version or > bugfix release works correctly. Please do not mark

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise

> Kendy felt it maybe difficult and wanted to know if it was possible to > do this from the bugzilla end so that it would be automatic. Probably easier solution is that 2 or 3 of you just monitor this link routinely (has keyword, does not have UX in mailing list):

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] NEW Ping latest run

On 04/16/2016 12:44 AM, Tommy wrote: > hi there, just a few minutes ago I did a new run of the NEW BUGS > UNTOUCHED FROM MORE THAN 1 YEAR ping. Thanks Tommy! I will *try* to write a blog post with a couple pretty graphs/charts in about 3 weeksno promises, life is pretty hectic right now. If

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise

On 04/17/2016 02:11 PM, Yousuf 'Jay' Philips wrote: > maybe difficult and wanted to know if it was possible to > do this from the bugzilla end so that it would be automatic. Not by default - it would require some hacking of bugzilla. ___ List Name:

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise

On 04/17/2016 08:13 AM, Yousuf 'Jay' Philips wrote: > Hi All, > > The design team would like a 'needsUXEval' keyword added to the > keywords field, so that ux-advise bugs can be assigned that keyword > instead of having ux-advise assigned in the component field, so for > example it would be easy

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Keyword for ux-advise

Hi, > The design team would like a 'needsUXEval' keyword added to the > keywords field, so that ux-advise bugs can be assigned that keyword > instead of having ux-advise assigned in the component field, so for > example it would be easy to search bugs in Draw that require ux-advise. Done > > QA

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Getting LibreOffice Writer 5.0.6 bibisected regression free against LibreOffice 4.4.0

Hi All, Was tested by Cor and Terrence and closed as WFM. One down :) Best, Joel On 03/29/2016 12:24 AM, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 03:17:09PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen > wrote: >> LibreOffice Writer has only 8 unresolved, fully

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Getting LibreOffice Writer 5.0.6 bibisected regression free against LibreOffice 4.4.0

Hi All, Was tested by Cor and Terrence and closed as WFM. One down :) Best, Joel On 03/29/2016 12:24 AM, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 03:17:09PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen > wrote: >> LibreOffice Writer has only 8 unresolved, fully

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Contact from LibreOffice-Box website

To me it just sounds like a bugShould ask on the user list to see if anyone knows tricks or workarounds but if it's a bug, they'll just have to report it and wait (and it could be a long time before it's fixed). On 03/03/2016 01:00 AM, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote: > Hi all, > maybe someone

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Blitz on Base bugs

Hi Alex, > I've always had a problem with bulk email bug reminders, and this has > definitely pushed my patience over my limit - for me, it only makes > sense if one understands the context behind the number of bugs reported > and tailors the reminder policy accordingly. I accept that we may not

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [QA] Need someone having Excel

On 01/07/2016 12:20 PM, Gérard Fargeot wrote: > The reporter first, yhen Joel close yhe bug report. > I'm not sure this is a good idea. The screenshot provided by Miroslav show > that Excel handles functions in the same way whether the argument either Just to clarify, I closed it after someone

[Libreoffice-qa] bibisecting post 5.0 regressions

Hi All, How do I bibisect bugs after 5.0 max? I don't see a 5.1 max. I see the dbgutil version but I don't see instructions on how to use that version nor is it entirely clear what versions it covers (is it covering 5.1 -> master?). I tried the typical "git bisect start latest oldest" on it and

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug Hunting for LibreOffice Android Viewer

Sounds great. Just one point here is that there really isn't a lot of effort going into fixing Android bugs right nowso finding the bugs is one step but just know that there are very few volunteers working on Android thus the bug reports may go untouched for some time. Best, Joel On

Re: help request on proposed VCL code patch

On 12/14/2015 06:46 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Was Caolan's commit, you said you would test "not before this weekend" > (a month ago), and to please poke you again "by Sunday" but nobody > poked you. (The poke fell through the list of things *I* have to do.) > >

Re: help request on proposed VCL code patch

On 12/14/2015 06:13 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Do you think you can take a look at it "fast" or should we revert? I don't remember why/how I was involved with this? Did I say I would test it and somehow it fell through the list of things that I have to do? What should I "look at"? Was it

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Drop-down boxes are broken for the whole LibreOffice.

On 12/04/2015 11:27 AM, m.a.riosv wrote: > > I have no rights to do it. > > For this I mail in the list, so it can be comment and if it was right set up > as blocker. > > Sounds good the "Ultra-critical", but I don't know if there are already > enough labels. You should most definitely have

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Drop-down boxes are broken for the whole LibreOffice.

On 12/04/2015 08:22 AM, m.a.riosv wrote: > Hi Regina, thanks for the info. > > I think it should be set up as blocker. Then set it as a blocker :) But recognize that "blocker" literally has no meaning (we don't block releases). Ultra-Critical may be a better term. Either as Critical or Blocker

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

On 12/01/2015 03:19 PM, Pedro wrote: > jmadero wrote >> On 12/01/2015 09:03 AM, Sophie wrote: >>> What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed >>> for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I >>> think also that a long list of version is

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

On 12/01/2015 09:03 AM, Sophie wrote: > Hi Joel, > Le 01/12/2015 17:53, Joel Madero a écrit : >> >> > Tommy's proposal was to simplify BZ approach on a user point of view. It > is intimidating to go further when you're not sure what version you are > using, and RC

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Building or bibisecting

On 12/01/2015 08:52 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > I don't bibisect - one of the reasons being that last time I tried, > bibisecting on OSX required one to go through the pain of Gatekeeper > every *** time you start LO (08:57:21 AM) shm_get_: *jmadero 1/ you can turn off gatekeeper while

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote: > Hi Joel > > > jmadero wrote >>> If a user is able to tell that a bug was introduced between 4.0.0 and >>> 4.0.1, >>> a bibisect in that range should be able to find the problematic >>> commit/patch? >>> What would be the advantage to have the user install

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote: > No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a > hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible. > > Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1, > Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

On 12/01/2015 10:16 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > 5.0.0.3 and 5.0.0.4 beta2: 42 > between rc3 and rc4 > > As long as the merge-to-one-version indicates what version was set > prior to the unification, I don't see the information loss, but it > should be a standardized comment, so that you

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

> > I will gladly work on such a proposal. However the bugzilla modifications > were not my idea, they were from Tommy. I just said I agreed that there are > too many versions. In any case I don't see how my opinion can affect the > current policies. I'm just a user, I'm not even a QA member.

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

> Hi Joel, all > > > jmadero wrote >> The problem really is that at least *I* do often time request users to >> go back and install older versions to help narrow down where a >> regression was introduced. This is particularly useful when a user is >> complaining about their regression not

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

Hi All, > > As long as the comment moving all to the maj.min version includes the > original version (or even adds it as a whiteboard item, I don't see > need for having the versions available. Well the comment doesn't always have the version - more often than not it doesn't. I'm definitely not

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

Hi All, > I agree with Tommy. Bugzilla is unfriendly enough. Shortening the list is a > good idea. > > How many people report bugs which are specific to a given RC? Are there more > than 10 people in the world doing this? > In fact at the pace the RCs are released it is nearly impossible for

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

Hi Tommy, On 11/29/2015 09:40 AM, Tommy wrote: > since 6 months passed by from the 4.3.x EOL I cleaned up the bugzilla > version field from all the alphas, betas and RCs. > > now only final releases are available and a 4.3 all versions item has > been added. > > just a few considerations I've

QA Meeting About How To Move Regressions Forward

Hi All, QA is going to have a meeting second week of December about regressions and what we (QA) can realistically do to help move things forward. The goal is to address all concerns/suggestions, talk about the realities of the project, and discuss what has already been rejected by ESC (such as a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday

Hi All, > There is a gradually growing number of regressions. Also bibisected > regressions. I know the ESC has attention for this, and that the board > recently approved projects/investments that are intended to help to > change this trend. > Pedro has a point that he doesn't like to accept the

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice releases

> > Maybe my suggestion wasn't clear. I know about the "twice a year" release > branches. My suggestion was exactly to delay the second release of the year > so that developers could have more time to dedicate to a single branch (of > course they could always submit new features to the Master

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday

Hi All, > BTW would be nice listen from the candidates their opinion about concrete > matters like this one. Should have suggested. If you're really interested in knowing candidates views on specific items you may want to email [board-discuss] list :) Warmest Regards, Joel

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday

Hi There, On 11/25/2015 02:04 PM, m.a.riosv wrote: > BTW would be nice listen from the candidates their opinion about concrete > matters like this one. I would be surprised if there was any deviation for any of the candidates - we've discussed this at length on the Board. Hell I just brought it

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday

On 11/25/2015 02:40 AM, Pedro wrote: > > > > Now that Collabora has a paid version (by the UK government) which is a 3 > year LTS some of these bugs might start to be squashed and contributed back > to the Master branch... > > A sugestion: maybe have a branch dedicated to bug fixes every other

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday

Hi Pedro, > It is impossible for me to join at the 13:00 but I would like to leave two > questions: That's unfortunate, we should talk about moving the time and/or finding some other way to get dedicated people like yourself on live chat during meeting. > > Isn't 16% of Regressions something

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Base QA request

I'll take a look but it won't be before this weekend. If someone else can check first that would be appreciated (please let me know so I don't duplicate work). If I don't respond by Sunday please poke me again. Best, Joel On 11/11/2015 03:07 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Hi, > > In the

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Base QA request

I'll take a look but it won't be before this weekend. If someone else can check first that would be appreciated (please let me know so I don't duplicate work). If I don't respond by Sunday please poke me again. Best, Joel On 11/11/2015 03:07 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Hi, > > In the

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla Idea: Issues assign to me

freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *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

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

> * ABANDONED > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) > * EXPIRED (Launchpad) Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and say "this is still a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

> * ABANDONED > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat) > * EXPIRED (Launchpad) Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and say "this is still a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can > not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one > time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the > reporter was or would be

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

On 11/09/2015 11:15 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: >> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can >> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one >> time crash and no stack trace,

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

On 11/09/2015 11:15 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: >> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can >> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one >> time crash and no stack trace,

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

> > > I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID > > IMHO the time spent to implement this new > ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless... > > in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user > so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

> > > I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID > > IMHO the time spent to implement this new > ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless... > > in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user > so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Duplicated bus's reports

> Hi, > > I think lately there are several cases with same bug in two consecutive > reports, maybe something in the configurations leads to this matter. My guess is user not being patient and hitting submit twice - I believe that can result in dupes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bibisecting: Over 1000 bibisects served!

reedesktop.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://lis

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bibisecting: Over 1000 bibisects served!

reedesktop.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://lis

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bibisecting: Over 1000 bibisects served!

On 10/16/2015 08:29 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Joel Madero <jmadero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Great news. Do we have any stats on the % of those that are now resolved? >> > Sure thing: 62% of the bugs currently bibisected are RESOLVED or

[Libreoffice-qa] Dealing with Corrupt Profiles

Hi All, I wanted to know people's thoughts about dealing with bugs that we know are caused by corrupt profiles. My suggestion: NEW with "corruptProfile" in the whiteboard. This is different from how it's currently done as we close these as WFM. I'm happy to continue but if we are trying to

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Windows and OpenGL - what to do in the unlikely case that LibreOffice crashes on startup

On 09/23/2015 07:31 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > Hi *, > > as LibreOffice 5.0.2 comes with OpenGL rendering by deafult that > might cause problems on certain hardware/driver combinations, > there is a possibility of LibreOffice crashing on startup, so you > cannot go to Tools|Options →

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice 5.0.2 RC2 test builds available

> 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.or

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Quick summary of the profile's study

Great analysis...so it does seem like an option to quickly reset/backup would be very good. Maybe a tender possibility. Best, Joel On 09/09/2015 08:44 AM, Sophie wrote: > Hi all, > > So as requested during the QA meeting, here is a quick summary of the > study [1] that has been conducted by one

[Libreoffice-qa] Bibisect tagging - suggestion for QA IRC meeting discussion

Hi All, After having conversations with Cloph and shm_get I came up with the following list of bugs that should *have something related to bibisect*. What this means is that one of these tags should exist: _*Whiteboard*_ 1) bibisectRequest; 2) bibisected; 3) notBibisectable (this means it falls

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Interoperability Test File

Hi Pedro, jmadero wrote I don't know if anyone has a repository of test files for interoperability but one of our great users provided a test file and reported a whole slew of interop bugs about it. Just thought if anyone wants to: (1) look at the bugs; (2) if we have someone tracking

[Libreoffice-qa] Interoperability Test File

Hi All, I don't know if anyone has a repository of test files for interoperability but one of our great users provided a test file and reported a whole slew of interop bugs about it. https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=118139 Bug #'s

Interoperability Test File

Hi All, I don't know if anyone has a repository of test files for interoperability but one of our great users provided a test file and reported a whole slew of interop bugs about it. https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/attachment.cgi?id=118139 Bug #'s

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] When it's time to basic bases?

I skimmed this and really...this isn't how the team works. We don't have someone come and insist and dictate how we do our work. If you want then the best thing for you to do is lead by example and then if it works, others will follow. With that, I'm not going to say anything specific with

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bugzilla versions cleanup proposals

On 07/26/2015 07:02 AM, Tommy wrote: in the last few weeks I was given Bugzilla admin power by Joel and I'm adding new version once they come out and rename RCs to release once they are promoted. I think I could do some cleanups but I need your opinion first...

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Start Center

Might want to include design list as well as I think Kendy would be the one who could answer these questions. I honestly have no idea On 07/23/2015 07:51 PM, Terrence Enger wrote: Hi, All, A couple of questions about the Start Centre, if I may ... (1) Starting with the dbgutil bibisect

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bug #92434

Hey Dan, So a couple things: 1) It's rarely appropriate to report a new bug that is reporting behavior that is already reported - the only time this really is appropriate is if the original bug is really old and was fixed at some point - then reporting a new issue is best; 2) REOPENED should

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Temporarily reverting patch to Importance fields

On 07/16/2015 05:35 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote: Hi all, As we've run into some unintended side effects from our latest local changes to Bugzilla, I've reverted our field-restriction patch for the time being. Now that we've actually had people testing it - is the only issue the NEEDINFO to NEW

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugzilla: Temporarily reverting patch to Importance fields

On 07/16/2015 05:35 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote: Hi all, As we've run into some unintended side effects from our latest local changes to Bugzilla, I've reverted our field-restriction patch for the time being. Now that we've actually had people testing it - is the only issue the NEEDINFO to NEW

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7

On 06/26/2015 08:56 AM, Pedro wrote: jmadero wrote IMO there is a need for a feature to renew the user profile automatically by clicking on a button or something similar [2]. So we can avoid many bugs and anger. Indeed - that's already a request (Backup and restore button for profile). :)

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7

on yet another project. 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

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Weekly and Daily Bug Summary

On 06/11/2015 10:46 AM, Tommy wrote: we already have a Weekly summary here: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/page.cgi?id=weekly-bug-summary.html It's possible to have a similar bugzilla page with a Daily summary? Sorry this sat - we have someone currently working on doing a better stats

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7

guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Spell Check on Windows 7

On 06/24/2015 10:13 PM, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote: Hi Joel, Pedro, Am 25.06.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Joel Madero: Yeah the instructions weren't entirely helpful beyond the superfluous devs don't care at all! type stuff. I'm tempted to throw it back to NEEDINFO. @Pedro - you mind putting

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] MAB/Priority and Severity

On 06/23/2015 12:32 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 01:14:54PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. I'd like to suggest to add this query

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] MAB/Priority and Severity

On 06/23/2015 12:32 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: Hi, On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 01:14:54PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote: So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. I'd like to suggest to add this query

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] problem; help request

archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/ -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] QA Meeting Minutes - 2015-06-17 (PLUS: BugHunting Session all this weekend!)

On 06/19/2015 10:50 AM, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote: Hi Robinson, Am 19.06.2015 um 19:34 schrieb Robinson Tryon: Hi all, Remember that we're having a BugHunting Session all this weekend for the RC1 of LibreOffice 5.0. If you want to join in or have questions about where to start, please

MAB/Priority and Severity

Hi All! So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. What this mean: 1) If you notice that you lack privileges then just email me and I'll add you to the list (add your bugzilla email account)[1][2] 2)

[Libreoffice-qa] MAB/Priority and Severity

Hi All! So the time has finally arrived that we are moving forward with _locking out priority/severity_. This means that *MAB will be retired*. What this mean: 1) If you notice that you lack privileges then just email me and I'll add you to the list (add your bugzilla email account)[1][2] 2)

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] my reduced QA activity

On 05/29/2015 10:27 PM, Tommy wrote: duOn Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:42:46 +0200, Tommy ba...@quipo.it wrote: Hi guys, as you may have noticed my QA activity has been almost close to zero in the last few months. I've been very busy at work and some familiar medical issues (which fortunately

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] organizing our crasher bugs ?

On 05/27/2015 07:25 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: There are ~190 bugs with the word crash in the summary in the states new/assigned/reopened/unconfirmed. As with the coverity, import-testing, export-testing stuff I think it would be helpful to start chewing into crashers in some systematic way

Cosmetic Bugzilla Cleanup

Hi All - Just a request that if someone is interested in doing a mass cleanup (like with whiteboard or keyword) please ping me (and cc Robinson) first and one of us will temporarily turn off email notifications. I've gotten a complaint from a well respect developer that the mass emails create a

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] MSO 2013 Excel - Template Roundtripping

Hi Marina! Any luck getting started? Need anything from my end to help you get started? Best, Joel On 05/14/2015 12:53 AM, Marina Latini wrote: - Messaggio originale - Da: Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com A: Libreoffice-qa libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Inviato: Mercoledì

Goodbye MAB - Hello Highest

Hi All, It's time to try moving away from MAB list and towards using priorities correctly. That being said: 1) Highest reflects that it's equivalent to a MAB; 2) Highest can be matched with any severity (minor, normal, major, critical, blocker) but should be dictated by common sense logic: *#

[Libreoffice-qa] [TEST] locking priority, severity, assignee, QA contact in bugzilla

Hi All, I've hacked bugzilla a bit but it needs some thorough testing before we commit it to our actual bugzilla instance. *What I've done*: * Locked the following fields to anyone that does not belong to group contributors or are assigned the bug o QA Contact; o Assignee;

[TEST] locking priority, severity, assignee, QA contact in bugzilla

Hi All, I've hacked bugzilla a bit but it needs some thorough testing before we commit it to our actual bugzilla instance. *What I've done*: * Locked the following fields to anyone that does not belong to group contributors or are assigned the bug o QA Contact; o Assignee;

Automatic Stats from Bugzilla - Feedback needed

Hi All - Our very own Liongold is attempting to implement better statistic collection and analysis so that we can readily assess how the project is going without having to download a ton of raw data and then get the stats ourselves. That being said, he's looking for feedback. If there are any

[Libreoffice-qa] Bibisect Requests

Hi All - Seems like the request for bibisects is growing quickly which is awesome - but we need to keep up with those requests :). If you have some time to poke: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/HowToBibisect#Finding_bugs_needing_bibisect I think we've seen incredible results from

[Libreoffice-qa] Advanced Triaging - Tutorials?

Hi All, There is a bug that needs some advanced QA work on it and I'm curious if anyone wants to take a stab at it and try to document the process (including screenshots and/or screen captures). https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75554 Comment 6 describes what Michael needs. I

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Try not to reopen bugs when anything more than a trivial amount of time has passed

Hi Caolan - On 03/24/2015 04:36 AM, Caolán McNamara wrote: It generally doesn't make sense to reopen a bug after a few months has passed since it was closed. I wonder if removing REOPENED all together is appropriate then - it seems like it has no place outside of a very very narrow 30 day

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...

On 03/15/2015 03:39 PM, Zeki Bildirici wrote: Hi Micheal, 2015-03-12 18:19 GMT+02:00 Michael Meeks michael.me...@collabora.com: * GSoC (Cedric/Thorsten) + Wiki page there; we still have time to add tasks here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Gsoc/Ideas

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...

Hi Zeki, As always you raise interesting points :) 2015-03-16 0:42 GMT+02:00 Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com: Hi Joel, Of course these are my wishes on user side :) And 1,2 are missing features for enterprise usage which we extensively used in companies. IMHO - GSoC should not be used

[Libreoffice-qa] Could Anyone Put a Netbook to Use

Hi All, We have two netbooks (Windows 8 but you could probably dual boot with Linux) that were bought for QA that are currently not being used. Just curious if anyone could put these to use. Preferably they would stick with QA but if someone outside of QA could use them, I'll talk to Florian to

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugTriage#Suggested_Triage_Order Click on the CrasherAll link (we should be monitoring these closely - one is 7+ weeks old) Best, Joel On 03/06/2015 06:58 AM, V Stuart Foote wrote: @Joel, Think you need to share that query list for us to be able to

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced

On 03/06/2015 12:11 AM, Alex Thurgood wrote: Le 06/03/2015 05:52, Joel Madero a écrit : Hi Joel, I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about bugs that have backtraces but QA has been unable to repro. Should these just be pushed to NEW ? Currently there are 8 UNCONFIRMED crashers

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [libreoffice-documentation] Could Anyone Put a Netbook to Use

:14, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, We have two netbooks (Windows 8 but you could probably dual boot with Linux) that were bought for QA that are currently not being used. Just curious if anyone could put these to use. Preferably they would stick with QA but if someone

[Libreoffice-qa] Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced

Hi All, I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about bugs that have backtraces but QA has been unable to repro. Should these just be pushed to NEW ? Currently there are 8 UNCONFIRMED crashers - at least one or two of those have backtraces but have had other members of QA say they cannot

Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced

Hi All, I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about bugs that have backtraces but QA has been unable to repro. Should these just be pushed to NEW ? Currently there are 8 UNCONFIRMED crashers - at least one or two of those have backtraces but have had other members of QA say they cannot

needAdvice bugs

Hi All - With the great work of QA our bug count is quite manageable these days but we do have a few buts (~20) that are in needAdvice status and we'd really appreciate some developer input. Some of these bugs are in NEW or NEEDINFO status but I think they could still use a fresh set of eyes from

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] next run of the NEW bugs ping?

On 02/17/2015 09:43 AM, Tommy wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:29:18 +0100, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com wrote: Hey Tommy, On 02/16/2015 10:28 PM, Tommy wrote: hi guys, sorry of not being much active in the last month but work issues brought me away from bugzilla (temporarily) I

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >