[Libreoffice-commits] core.git: helpcontent2

[Joel Madero]

 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  578e1e320daaa82b2d3b8c0eeea84bf704967939

tdf#103397 - added example for Transpose function

Added a simple example to the help for transpose() function

Added tablehead style to example rows/columns

Change-Id: I464983d480cb237a53e033005057a1faef0b9193
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/30334
Reviewed-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br>
Tested-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br>

diff --git a/helpcontent2 b/helpcontent2
index 433c4c0..578e1e3 16
--- a/helpcontent2
+++ b/helpcontent2
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Subproject commit 433c4c0477c6dfcde68ed5b1eb98f1811095f050
+Subproject commit 578e1e320daaa82b2d3b8c0eeea84bf704967939
___
Libreoffice-commits mailing list
libreoffice-comm...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-commits

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

[Joel Madero]

 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#103397 - added example for Transpose function

Added a simple example to the help for transpose() function

Added tablehead style to example rows/columns

Change-Id: I464983d480cb237a53e033005057a1faef0b9193
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/30334
Reviewed-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br>
Tested-by: Olivier Hallot <olivier.hal...@edx.srv.br>

diff --git a/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp 
b/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp
index 3a8e014..842121a 100644
--- a/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp
+++ b/source/text/scalc/01/04060107.xhp
@@ -575,7 +575,7 @@
 Syntax
 MDETERM(Array)
 Array represents a square array in which the 
determinants are defined.
-You can find a 
general introduction to using Array functions on top of this page.
+You can find a 
general introduction to using Array functions on top of this page.
 
 
 
@@ -632,11 +632,128 @@
 Syntax
 TRANSPOSE(Array)
 Array represents the array in the spreadsheet 
that is to be transposed.
-
+You can find a 
general introduction to using Array functions on top of this page.
 
 Example
 In the 
spreadsheet, select the range in which the transposed array can appear. If the 
original array has n rows and m columns, your selected range must have at least 
m rows and n columns. Then enter the formula directly, select the original 
array and press Shift+Command+Enter
 Shift+Ctrl+Enter. 
Or, if you are using the Function Wizard, mark the 
Array check box. The transposed array appears in the selected 
target range and is protected automatically against changes.
+
+
+  
+
+
+
+  A
+
+
+  B
+
+
+  C
+
+
+  D
+
+  
+  
+
+  1
+
+
+  2
+
+
+  3
+
+
+  4
+
+
+  5
+
+  
+  
+
+  2
+
+
+  6
+
+
+  7
+
+
+  8
+
+
+  9
+
+  
+
+
+The above table is 2 rows, 4 columns. In order to transpose it, you must 
select 4 rows, 2 columns. Assuming you want to transpose the above table to the 
range A7:B10 (4 rows, 2 columns) you must select the entire range and then 
enter the following:
+
+TRANSPOSE(A1:D2)
+
+Then make sure to enter it as matrix formula with Shift+Command+Enter
+Shift+Ctrl+Enter.
 The result will be as follows:
+
+
+  
+
+
+
+  A
+
+
+  B
+
+  
+  
+
+  7
+
+
+  2
+
+
+  6
+
+  
+  
+
+  8
+
+
+  3
+
+
+  7
+
+  
+  
+
+  9
+
+
+  4
+
+
+  8
+
+  
+  
+
+  10
+
+
+  5
+
+
+  9
+
+  
+
 
 
 
@@ -1145,4 +1262,4 @@
 
 
 
-
\ No newline at end of file
+
___
Libreoffice-commits mailing list
libreoffice-comm...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-commits

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

[Joel Madero]

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 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 sufficient
> latence period.
>
> For example:
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68846
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
>
> Best regards.
> JBF

___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Bugzilla: wrong NEEDINFO / INVALID cleaning

[Joel Madero]

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 sufficient
> latence period.
>
> For example:
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68846
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69650
>
> Best regards.
> JBF

___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] new keyword needUITest

[Joel Madero]

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 Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] regression keyword

[Joel Madero]

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 older bugs
> as regressions.
>
> Is this restriction to *recent* regressions right?
Whoa...yeah that seems really wrong and not at all what we've been
doing. This goes to show that the wiki still needs a lot of cleanup :-/
Thanks for catching this.


Best,
Joel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Keyword for ux-advise

[Joel Madero]

> 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):

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email1=libreoffice-ux-advise%40lists.freedesktop.org=1=notequals=needsUXEval_type=allwords_id=604822_format=advanced=---



Best,
Joel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] NEW Ping latest run

[Joel Madero]

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 you remember, ping me in 3 weeks to remind me :)


Best,
Joel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Keyword for ux-advise

[Joel Madero]

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: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Keyword for ux-advise

[Joel Madero]

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 to search bugs in Draw that require ux-advise.
>
> QA members that would be assigning this new keyword rather than the
> component should be aware that they would have to add the ux-advise
> mailing list email to the CC list, as that isnt automatically being
> set with the use of the keyword.

Question: Are QA members still just pushing to NEW? Are we leaving in
UNCONFIRMED with some reasonable expectation that UX will tackle them?

Currently we just immediate toss the bug to NEW without confirming to
get them out of the UNCONFIRMED stack. Personally, I think that this is
preferred because without this QA members will: (1) be seeing these bugs
over and over again with no insight as to whether they are valid; (2)
New QA members might be confused and just push them to NEW and confirm
without knowing UX methods; (3) it might leads to QA members bickering
over the best UX practice when this is a job for UX, not QA.

Joel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Keyword for ux-advise

[Joel Madero]

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 members that would be assigning this new keyword rather than the
> component should be aware that they would have to add the ux-advise
> mailing list email to the CC list, as that isnt automatically being
> set with the use of the keyword.
I doubt people will remember to do this - but, it's your workflow.

Should I delete the component?


Best,
Joel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Getting LibreOffice Writer 5.0.6 bibisected regression free against LibreOffice 4.4.0

[Joel Madero]

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 confirmed, triaged and
>> bibisected regressions today. So getting LibreOffice Writer "bibisected
>> regression clean" for 5.0 should be doable. By priority IMHO the remaining
>> unresolved issues are:
>>
>> - tdf#94063: critial, all platforms
> If this is considered critical, can someone please help with not just
> bibisecting but actually bisecting it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Miklos
>
>
> ___
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: libreoffice...@lists.freedesktop.org
> Change settings: https://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/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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 confirmed, triaged and
>> bibisected regressions today. So getting LibreOffice Writer "bibisected
>> regression clean" for 5.0 should be doable. By priority IMHO the remaining
>> unresolved issues are:
>>
>> - tdf#94063: critial, all platforms
> If this is considered critical, can someone please help with not just
> bibisecting but actually bisecting it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Miklos
>
>
> ___
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
> Change settings: https://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/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Contact from LibreOffice-Box website

[Joel Madero]

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 can take care of this and aswer to her.
>
>
> Am 02.03.2016 um 19:34 schrieb katiem...@aol.com:
>>
>>   Salutation - Ms.
>> Name - margaret
>> Surname - hardy
>> Email - katiem...@aol.com
>> Your Text - in a desperate attempt to convert appleworks and
>> microsoft word excel files to my new mac i tried your product - it
>> works for some but not all.  the problem is that the print page shows
>> horizontal and vertical layouts but it only prints the horizontal
>> even though i check the vertical box.
>>
>
>

___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: https://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] Blitz on Base bugs

[Joel Madero]

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
> have the resources or desire to do that, but regretfully, this policy
> has pushed me to announce my immediate withdrawal from any further QA
> work, certainly at least for the time being.

Turning off email notifications is relatively easy in bugzilla, as is
creating a filter in email to filter results to a specific folder where
they can either be purged after some period of time or handled when you
have time to look at them.

Just my two cents. It's unfortunate to see you go (at least temporarily)
but I accept the decision of course. Thanks for the hard work and
contributions :)


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 else already closed it as
FIXED ;)
___
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] bibisecting post 5.0 regressions

[Joel Madero]

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
that failed:

joel@joel-Studio-1737:~/Documents/Work/Non-Profit/Libre-Office/bibisect/lo-linux-dbgutil-daily$
git bisect start latest oldest
Already on 'master'
Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/master'.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 12/26/2015 01:33 PM, Gülşah Köse wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> LibreOffice Turkish contributors are going to come together for bug
> hunting for LibreOffice android viewer on 29th Dec at 13.00 UTC.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> -- 
> /Gülşah Köse/
> _about.me _
>
>
> ___
> 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/

___
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: help request on proposed VCL code patch

[Joel Madero]

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.)
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2015-November/071038.html
Ah yes. My mistake (thanks for the reference.hundred+ emails a day
makes things get buried). Is a test still really needed or is the
regression thereand therefore we're past the stage of testing?

Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: help request on proposed VCL code patch

[Joel Madero]

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 my commit? Is there something I can
do to fix it? I'm happy to test in a couple hours but need a bit more
guidance.


Best,
Joel


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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 rights. Changing that now. Please verify
that you have the rights now :) Make sure to comment when updating
priority/severity so people know your thought process :)


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 I suspect it'll be fixed relatively
fast.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 confusing.
> I think the problem here is that a compromise is not possible. 
>
> It is absurd that the version list has 115 items !!!
>
> LibreOffice_versions.ods
>  
>  
>
> LibreOffice/TDF absolutely needs a user friendly Bug Submission Assistant
> where users can report bugs they found in the stable releases of the live
> branches (currently 4.4, 5.0 and 5.1). This would reduce the list to less
> than 15 options...
So . . . I think this is a completely separate issue and one that
perhaps we can discuss tendering somethingif I worked with you on
this front could you compromise and agree that bugzilla can stay as is
with current policies in place?


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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, beta are not clear things for users.
> 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 confusing.
> I'm not doing enough QA currently to have a firm opinion on Tommy's
> proposal, but I understand his request to shorten the 6 month period in
> this way.

I just wonder in terms of # of versions - how many are we talking about?
3-5 versions removed 2-3 months earlier? Given there area lot of
versionsI'm just not sure if we'll see real gains from the proposal
and there is a real possibility for loss.

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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Building or bibisecting

[Joel Madero]

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
you are doing the bisection. 2/ right-click open also allow to bypass
gatekeeper when opening stuff in a gui env*

___
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] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

[Joel Madero]

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 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2,
>>> RC1, etc?
>> Bibisect is really only at this point useful for Linux because the
>> documentation on OSX and Windows is still below par. That's at least my
>> understanding - have you tried to bibisect on other platforms?
> 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 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
> Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?
The benefit is narrowing it down by hundreds of commitshave you ever
looked at how many commits are between two alphas? Or between two point
releases? If we're sitting here screaming and yelling about regressions,
the more we narrow down the more likely regressions will be dealt with.

Example (commits between...):
5.0.0.1 beta1 and 5.0.0.5 release: 357
5.0.0.3 and 5.0.0.4 beta2: 42

As far as "all the footwork be on QA side" - yes.because all the
development work is on the developer side (it's not like they are asking
us to code.). It's our job to narrow down the issue as much as
possible (down to a single commit is best obviously) and then developers
can take over and do their magic with the code (that is almost always
way above my head).

This debate is going in circles - if no one else agrees with me then go
ahead (Tommy has permissions), just make sure to document it somewhere.
I'd give it a couple more weeks to see if someone else has additional
thoughts. My thought is that if a user is so super confused based on a
few extra versions thenwell then there bug reports are likely to be
bad anyways (it's not a high bar to understand versions).

@Tommy - I suggest clarifying what the proposal is at this time as you
and Pedro have deviated substantially.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
> Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?

At least some developers agree with me btw - "precision is good" and
"lowering to the lowest common denominator doesn't seem ideal." Again,
certain developers have complained about QA tinkering without thinking
about the repercussions. Just because you can't see the benefits to
precision does not mean there aren't any.

Just food for thought as we debate changing things *once again*. Do we
actually know for a fact that users are getting confused by having a few
extra versions listed? Or are we just assuming (or it's a corner case
with a couple users complaining?) and in response we want to yet again
modify bugzilla versions?

*sighs*


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 could still use queries
> for those versions.
Ah I see the confusion here. I'm talking about cases where _after the
merge happens_ we are asking users to go back and download archived
versions to try to narrow down where their regression was introduced. I
agree that if the version was already set to begin with then it's not a
big deal, but after the merge happens, if we're asking users to "narrow
down the regression 'as much as possible'" but then we are taking away
their ability to actually set the version...that seems like a problem
and pretty confusing.

This is why the 6 month rule IMHO makes sense. This gives QA 6 months to
triage the bug, try to determine if it's a regression, and try to get
users to assist as much as possible by narrowing down the version to the
most precise possible (absent bibisecting/bisecting). After 6 months it
probably is a lot less likely that the user would care enough to test
the bug against older versions so it makes sense to purge at this point.
2-3 months turnaround is IMHO too short when it can take 60 days just to
triage the bug (before there is a single touch by QA).

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

>
> 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.
Don't be modest. You're a part of the team. And I know Tommy suggested
the change to begin with but you seemed to have stronger feelings about
going farther than Tommy's proposal :) But, if you can wait a couple
weeks I'll have a little time and we can try to draft something :) It'll
be a proposal to request funds (maybe through the grant request form).
I'll think about the best way to proceed.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

> 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 getting love - at this point I
>> start heavily suggesting they do some of the lifting themselves to move
>> it forward (bibisect themselves, if that's not possible to go back and
>> install older versions and try to narrow down to a beta/rc where the
>> issue was introduced). I've actually found this to not only be useful
>> for the particular bug but also useful in recruiting new people.
> I don't see any incompatibility in asking people to use several versions
> (actually I do that using Portable versions of LibreOffice from WinPenPack)
> and reducing the number of versions in the drop list. 
> 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 4.0.0 Beta1, Beta2,
> RC1, etc?

Bibisect is really only at this point useful for Linux because the
documentation on OSX and Windows is still below par. That's at least my
understanding - have you tried to bibisect on other platforms?


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 in favor of adding yet another thing to
whiteboard...too many opportunities for mistake, too often cluttered and
hard to follow.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 someone
> to test and report bugs specific for an RC... Even if TDF had people
> contracted to do this, they still wouldn't have the time to thoroughly test
> and report bugs in time to be fixed before the next RC (and even the final
> version) is released.
>
> In my opinion the all the alpha, beta and RC bugs should be grouped ta o
> single version as soon as the following final version is released 
> E.g. All 5.0.0 alpha, beta and RCs should be grouped into 5.0.0 when the
> first RC for 5.0.1 is announced to the public (and added to the list).
>
> In fact, at this point there should be only the alphas, betas and RCs for
> the 4.4.7, 5.0.3 and 5.1.0 releases (and it's quite enough confusion to have
> 3 branches releasing at the same time...)
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 getting love - at this point I
start heavily suggesting they do some of the lifting themselves to move
it forward (bibisect themselves, if that's not possible to go back and
install older versions and try to narrow down to a beta/rc where the
issue was introduced). I've actually found this to not only be useful
for the particular bug but also useful in recruiting new people.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 already expressed to Joel few months ago:
>
> 1- I still think that the 6 months EOL embargo before cleanup is too
> much... It would be better to do the cleanup earlier, let's say 4 or 3
> months after the EOL

I still disagree :) I don't see that many benefits and I see potential
issues that cause headaches for users and contributors alike.
>
> 2- I think the "all versions" items are unnecessary... as far as I
> remember that was an item created for the BSA which is now not
> supported anymore. when we ask users to define the "earlier version"
> where the bug appeared we want them to exactly define in which release
> the bug appeared... so this generic "all versions" item is in contrast
> with our policy. I suggest to hide all those "all versions" items from
> the version admin page. doing this we would get rid of 8 items from
> our long version list.

Mixed feelings here. I don't think we should be tinkering a lot unless
there is a real gain. Again, here I see no real gain. Others have
appropriately criticized the QA team for "tinkering too much" and I
think that we should really think about if there is something concrete
to gain before tinkering a bunch.


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/

QA Meeting About How To Move Regressions Forward

[Joel Madero]

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 long-term "fix only" release).

If you're at all interested in taking part please monitor the QA list
(or ping me directly). I think having at least a couple experienced
developers who can patiently explain the realities of the project and
can/will not/and might be possible would be great. Finally, if there are
specific things that developers can think of that QA members can do to
help move regressions forward please share those ideas.

As a question to you all:
1) How important is bibisected/bisect when determining what to fix?
2) How important is accurate priority/severity + keyword tagging?
3) Is "highest" still monitored like MAB is?
4) In the past we tried a hardHack list that we ultimately retired.
Would it be possible to have a weekly 1-2 fully triaged (bisected
regressions with good steps and all) brought up during the ESC to see if
there are any takers?

Any other thoughts really appreciated :)


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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 situation, and -
> learning from his contributions - he is helping a lot with good work here.
> Alas no ready to use solution from me today :)
> It's on my mind, as some of you may know from some grumbling mails that
> I send now and then. I expect to have some room next week to spend more
> time on thinking for this. E.g. the suggestion for positive stimulation,
> as mentioned also by Bjoern.
>
> Pedro: can you please ping me in a week or so?

I would like to take part also - I've thought about a few new ideas that
I think might work :) I won't be available until December 8. Almost any
time (absent really really late to really really early) would work
between December 8 - 10. Shall we aim for a phone call? Google hangout?
IRC Chat?

I'm happy Pedro brought this up as I think collectively we can come up
with a solution.


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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice releases

[Joel Madero]

>
> 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 branch)
>
> Looking at this chart
> 
>  
>
> you will notice that there are very few times when developers are working on
> a single branch. In fact most of the times they are working on 3 branches
> simultaneously and therefore the constant "rush before release" that Sophie
> mentions.
>
> My suggestion was (as an example) to branch 5.2 later in the year (e.g. in
> late October) so that there is 3-4 months to dedicate to 5.1 and therefore
> have time to reduce the backlog of confirmed bugs (and even for QA people to
> bisect some bugs without having to worry about testing a new branch).
>
> My other suggestion was for TDF to organize a Bug Squashing Session during
> this period.
>
> Therefore this does not change the Timed release logic, it just spaces it a
> bit to allow time for bug fixing...
Nothing prevents developers now to dedicate 100% of their time to
regression squashing between major releasesA developer could have
(by choice) focused entirely on new features for 5.0, and entirely on
regression for 5.1. The fact that they did not implies that as
volunteers, that wasn't of any interest to them. I'm not seeing what
exactly you're proposing anyone do. Do you want TDF to lock LibreOffice
every other major release and say "absolutely no new features or bug
squashing, only regression fixing?" I think you have a misunderstanding
of the relationship that the Document Foundation (entity) has with it's
contributors (volunteers).

Again, nothing is preventing you from reaching out and trying to recruit
developers to focus on regressions.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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

___
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] Reminder: QA Meeting on Wednesday

[Joel Madero]

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 up today (saying it came up again in QA) and well, there was
unanimous consensus and hopefully one of the developers will write a
nice blog post about this issue to put it to rest once and for all.
Telling others what to do is not how we work. We have a strong culture
of "the doers decide" and the "doers" stick with what they "do" - thus
again, I really do think there is a solution here.


If QA members just bisected each regression (fully bisect) and
prioritized correctly I *honestly* believe that the regression count
would fall. I don't understand why this point is being ignored as it's
literally *completely* in our control.


Anywho, I like the spirited conversation I just don't see any actionable
item. I suggested that Pedro go track down developers to agree with him
but he quickly dismissed that (because he couldn't convince me?) and
asked Robinson or someone else to do the work of bringing up to the ESC.
The ESC has also talked about this at length and rejected it (on several
occasions). I've spoken with many of the developers who join the ESC and
all of them reject this concept of QA dictating what they do, or that
there should be any quasi-dictating by having "fix builds" or the like.
But again, it's not outside of any of your powers to broach the subject
yourselves on the dev list and pitch *concrete actionable ideas*.

At the same time, I highly encourage thinking about compromise positions
- which I think I have actually given a good compromise. If we can go to
the ESC and say "look our QA team is frantically doing *comprehensive
triaging* and bisecting each and every regression, can you take over
now? That seems like a more positive way to move things forward.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 year?
> Example: let's say 5.1 is dedicated to fixes. Then a slight change of
> schedule would postpone 5.2.0 to some months later so that most devs would
> concentrate on 5.1 (of course new features would still be added to Master in
> this period) instead of being split by two concurrent branches...
This is literally impossible. We would have very talented developers
saying no way - then what? We cannot dictate (we can suggest) what
developers do. If we tell Developers "pause all your work and go back
and do just regression fixing" they respond with "no" and then . . . the
end.

This has been discussed on and off for years, it's a fine idea,
impossible given our volunteer base and the way we respect that
volunteers can't be told what to do.

Again, if we go and bisect (fully bisect) each regression and add the
developer who accidentally broke the feature I'm relatively sure we'd
have good results. Then catching regressions before they happen is, as
Sophi suggested, all about growing the community to do testing in Alpha.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 that TDF should be worried about? 
I'm not sure what "worried about" really means. If a major issue was
resolved and the side effect is a minor regression, not so much. If
instead there are a ton of minor fixes that have created crashers, more
of an issue. I'd need a lot more information to adequately judge the
problem.
>
> How can QA (Quality Assurance) and TDF motivate the Devs to worry about the
> consistency of the program?

From QA perspective it's not our job to judge or dictate how developers
work. They are volunteers, and they should be respected like volunteers.
What we can do is the same that we could always do:
1) Narrow down the version where the problem came to be;
2) Bibisect/bisect -- CRUCIAL
3) Appropriately tag whiteboard
4) Appropriately deal with severity/priority.

Beyond that, it's out of our control and stressing about how developer
volunteers spend their time is not in anyone's best interestin
particular if we're falling short on our side (specifically bibisecting).

Finally, the only other advise I would give is raising the worst (and
*fully* triaged) regressions up to Robinson so that he can bring them up
during ESC. This is particularly useful when we can identify the
specific person who accidentally caused the regression and try to see if
they can fix it quickly.

Before demanding a lot of other's time, I personally would prefer we do
our job as good as possible.


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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Base QA request

[Joel Madero]

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 context of tdf#94069 and tdf#95723, the author of the fixes
> (not a Base user, thanks for fixing this!) requests checking that his
> fix (which just came in, will be in nightlies tomorrow) doesn't break
> anything else.
>
> Any takers?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59:46AM +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
>> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 11:31 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is patch attached to tdf#94069, nominally a rather annoying 
>>> Base UI bug (crash!), but which touches the VCL event loop (not 
>>> specific to Base) in a way that I don't understand the consequences 
>>> of
>> If I look at the behaviour in an older version of LibreOffice pre idle
>> tweaking then on moving that widget it "jumps" around a lot and is
>> shown rendering in the original location and then the new one and so
>> on. So it didn't really work right in the first place as far as I can
>> see.
>>
>> Looking at the UnoControl PushButton etc which don't suffer from this
>> problem I see that when setDesignMode is called for everything else
>> they set the "real" widget to hidden (it gets drawn via a different
>> mechanism than the real Paint in this case) so when its moved around it
>> doesn't generate Invalidate events.
>>
>> So, I think the right solution may be to make the GridControl behave
>> like the other UnoControl widgets in that design mode turns off
>> visibility. So I've done that as
>>  a7816853bad55ada597092c16ba9a0a761e067d0 and it seems to work well.
>>
>> I don't really "use" these things day to day, so testing appreciated
>> for this and follow up 44daaebf835bb60fb7e442e928cd30191f15af52 to
>> tweak how the grid control is laid out, to ensure I haven't busted
>> anything horribly.
>>
>> C.
>>
> ___
> 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/

___
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] Base QA request

[Joel Madero]

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 context of tdf#94069 and tdf#95723, the author of the fixes
> (not a Base user, thanks for fixing this!) requests checking that his
> fix (which just came in, will be in nightlies tomorrow) doesn't break
> anything else.
>
> Any takers?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:59:46AM +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
>> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 11:31 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is patch attached to tdf#94069, nominally a rather annoying 
>>> Base UI bug (crash!), but which touches the VCL event loop (not 
>>> specific to Base) in a way that I don't understand the consequences 
>>> of
>> If I look at the behaviour in an older version of LibreOffice pre idle
>> tweaking then on moving that widget it "jumps" around a lot and is
>> shown rendering in the original location and then the new one and so
>> on. So it didn't really work right in the first place as far as I can
>> see.
>>
>> Looking at the UnoControl PushButton etc which don't suffer from this
>> problem I see that when setDesignMode is called for everything else
>> they set the "real" widget to hidden (it gets drawn via a different
>> mechanism than the real Paint in this case) so when its moved around it
>> doesn't generate Invalidate events.
>>
>> So, I think the right solution may be to make the GridControl behave
>> like the other UnoControl widgets in that design mode turns off
>> visibility. So I've done that as
>>  a7816853bad55ada597092c16ba9a0a761e067d0 and it seems to work well.
>>
>> I don't really "use" these things day to day, so testing appreciated
>> for this and follow up 44daaebf835bb60fb7e442e928cd30191f15af52 to
>> tweak how the grid control is laid out, to ensure I haven't busted
>> anything horribly.
>>
>> C.
>>
> ___
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: libreoffice...@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 mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Xisco Faulí <aniste...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Do you think it would be plausible to have a link in bugzilla's menu to
> quickly check the issues assign to oneself like the link 'My bugs'? Right
> now, the only way I found to check this is in 'Advanced Search' - Custom
> Search -  Assignee equals to 'user' which IMHO, is quite tedious.
>
> On the other hand, I found that taking an issue doesn't change the status
> to ASSIGNED. Could bugzilla be hacked to do it automatically or it's
> intentioned?
>

You can create your own custom searches that will show up there on the
bottom. But, yeah I think this would be a relatively easy hack. I suggest
writing up a request in redmine and assigning it to Robinson - that way
it's on his radar.


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/



-- 
*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] Bugzilla: Adding new Status for 'abandoned' bugs?

[Joel Madero]

> * 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 valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some
other such thing).

Couple other points:

1. Please update the wiki when the change happens (both the status wiki
as well as the gardening wiki);
2. Please ping me directly so that I update my stuff for the next time I
do a mass ping.

Seems like a good idea. Thanks for leading it (and for Norbert's
original suggestion).


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

> * 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 valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some
other such thing).

Couple other points:

1. Please update the wiki when the change happens (both the status wiki
as well as the gardening wiki);
2. Please ping me directly so that I update my stuff for the next time I
do a mass ping.

Seems like a good idea. Thanks for leading it (and for Norbert's
original suggestion).


Best,
Joel

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

-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 willing to provide ... all cases where
> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the
rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient
information but it's a start :)

Let's let others speak up and then Robinson can just go with whatever
seems to be the consensus.

Best,
Joel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWQOIxAAoJEAFBJ8aP+xsU7LkH/R1PBNtb6c2zTKTHjTka4n9g
fMInqpMKxYogLG5aWV0iztFQuRJuoQ6LGijm9T2tft7gH5EOr86pwtcEyjabPiwy
cIZ+2p6IZ84CJIu2cac8k5SM0QWfX6lYlBhJEriVMB2kxIynn1Jd6oKlrL6A3xSG
qkpFzTZx5KzLvHlv2Lq7Cb+xpjBg7Kz4iEDAmgO5QPHjLgXmjRox2olxc3gaiwRJ
bBTF5byMn1Zncp93LENtphDfITZzTR6gdDxFfB4Ut8N09Syyq9iGtGKUxUOtVZjm
4J1YHbhtTTpw8Q+oTF+UMnGXgU63WkibdHA6ZjdHxJD35IX/Yh9KNCKrc5AzmpM=
=eaZ/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
>> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
>> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
>> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
>> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
> INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
> and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved 
> one
> and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
> confusion.

I was thinking exactly this and am back to thinking ABANDONED is the
best option. We wouldn't go right to ABANDONED. We would go to NEEDINFO
- which puts users on notice that we need something, after 6 months,
we'd do a follow-up ping saying "hurry up or else..." and then after
another month we close as ABANDONED, which seems to describe the
situation well.

Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
>> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
>> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
>> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
>> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
> INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
> and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved 
> one
> and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
> confusion.

I was thinking exactly this and am back to thinking ABANDONED is the
best option. We wouldn't go right to ABANDONED. We would go to NEEDINFO
- which puts users on notice that we need something, after 6 months,
we'd do a follow-up ping saying "hurry up or else..." and then after
another month we close as ABANDONED, which seems to describe the
situation well.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

>
>
> 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 don't
> provide necessary informations.

To put this in context - this began after several users over the course
of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status. I tend to
agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED will make
them feel better, that's fine. This will mostly be used by the automatic
pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this
new status.


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

>
>
> 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 don't
> provide necessary informations.

To put this in context - this began after several users over the course
of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status. I tend to
agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED will make
them feel better, that's fine. This will mostly be used by the automatic
pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this
new status.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

> 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.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

Great news. Do we have any stats on the % of those that are now resolved?

Best,
Joel

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Robinson Tryon <bishop.robin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A big thanks to everyone who's been helping us out with bibisection of
> regressions, and a hearty congratulations to Terrence Enger for being
> the lucky one to perform the 1000th one (and the 1001st one, too)!
>
> More here:
>
> https://colonelqubit.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/libreoffice-qa-over-1000-bibisects-served/
>
> Best,
> --R
>
> --
> Robinson Tryon
> QA Engineer - The Document Foundation
> LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald
> qu...@libreoffice.org
> 802-379-9482 | IRC: colonelqubit on Freenode
> ___
> 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/




-- 
*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] Bibisecting: Over 1000 bibisects served!

[Joel Madero]

Great news. Do we have any stats on the % of those that are now resolved?

Best,
Joel

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Robinson Tryon <bishop.robin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A big thanks to everyone who's been helping us out with bibisection of
> regressions, and a hearty congratulations to Terrence Enger for being
> the lucky one to perform the 1000th one (and the 1001st one, too)!
>
> More here:
>
> https://colonelqubit.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/libreoffice-qa-over-1000-bibisects-served/
>
> Best,
> --R
>
> --
> Robinson Tryon
> QA Engineer - The Document Foundation
> LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald
> qu...@libreoffice.org
> 802-379-9482 | IRC: colonelqubit on Freenode
> ___
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: libreoffice...@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/




-- 
*Joel Madero*
LibreOffice QA Volunteer
jmadero@gmail.com
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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 CLOSED.
>
> (CLOSED bugs make up less than 1% of the total -- we don't seem to
> bother taking that last step with many of our bugs... ;-)
Great news ! I haven't read your blog but I hope that these numbers are
in there :)


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

[Libreoffice-qa] Dealing with Corrupt Profiles

[Joel Madero]

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 locate profile corruption, I think this would help quite a
bit.


Just thinking out loud.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 → LibreOffice → View to disable it.
>
> In this case, you  can use the registry setting attached to
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93546 to disable
> it.
>
> so in case you stumble over bugs for rWindows that involve crash on
> start, keep this  one in mind.
Shouldn't this be in a wiki somewhere instead of directing to a registry
setting attached to a bug report? Also, @Robinson and others - can we
spam this message in the QA channel as many don't follow the mailing list.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

Please report bugs to the bug tracker - not to the email thread. Thanks!

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Carlo <carlochies...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Christian Lohmaier  googlemail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > For the upcoming version 5.0.2 the builds for RC2 are now available on
> > pre-releases.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Testing against the areas touched and the bugs fixed since the last
> > tag is greatly appreciated, as it helps us to confirm the stability of
> > this build.
> >
> Sifr icon set has some problems in x86 build: many icons have an ugly
> black background!
> No problems with previous RC1 build.
> Tested on Windows 10 italian localization.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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/
>



-- 
*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] Quick summary of the profile's study

[Joel Madero]

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 FR member on the FR lists
> concerning the profile corruption.
>
> --
> - based on feedback from users@fr and discuss@fr mailing lists
> - about 1300 messages have been sicked containing profil in them
> - version was 4.2.x and 4.3.x
>
> - per module concerned, the results are : LibreOffice, Writer, Calc.
>
> For 63% of them, resetting the profile didn't solve the problem, for 33%
> that solved the problem from which for 15% a partial modification solved
> the problem.
>
> The problem was concerning most of the time functionalities, display and
> crashes. The OS the most concerned was Windows for 75% (not a surprise
> as a large part of our users are running windows).
>
> For 11 times, modifying LibreOffice\4\user\config\soffice.cfg\modules
> solved a problem met with menus, toolbars, etc...
> For 7 times on 11, problems were du to extensions.
>
> When it was files that were concerned (17 submitted to the list) on 4
> was solved by deleting registrymodifications.xcu.
>
> Since version 4 there are less problems reported.
>
> When it was about crashes, 8 times on 30 renaming the profile solved the
> problem and was more on old version (3.4 or 3.6).
>
> The conclusion was that the profile has a bad reputation but its
> corruption is not so easy. One reason could be the change between
> OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice. Another one is the lack of information
> on how it runs and its different files (example is given on the 'store'
> file or 'psprint' file where there is no explanation on the file.) So by
> documenting it, it should be easier to identify and solve the problems
> that a user may encounter.
> -
> [1] http://www.numericoach.net/?Le-profil-de-LibreOffice-est-il-si
>
> Cheers
> Sophie

___
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 tagging - suggestion for QA IRC meeting discussion

[Joel Madero]

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 in the appropriate range but for
some reason it was not bibisectable...usually a series of bad commits
that make the range useless);
4) preBibisect (in which case the version field should be updated to
reflect this - *applies to bugs depending on versions listed below*).

_*Keyword*_
bisected - this applies *only* when the _exact_ commit is determined -
this isn't done through the normal bibisect method, it requires extra
steps. After doing this IMHO we should still include bibisected in the
whiteboard status.


*_Versions Covered:_
*Linux - any bug after 3.5beta0 that is a regression (including master);
Windows - any bug 4.3 - master (inclusive);
Mac - 4.1 - 5.0 (inclusive - note there is a gap in the 4.3 seriesif
you come across one of these the correct tag is notBibisectable
because of the gap)

_*Useful Links
*_These links are bugs that I believe match the above criteria for each
platform - so in theory *each of these bugs should have some tag
pertaining to bibisect

**Linux: *http://tinyurl.com/linuxBibisect*
**Windows: *http://tinyurl.com/windowsBibisect
*Mac: *http://tinyurl.com/macBibisect

_*Regression Tagging
*_Moving forward it's really important that we continue to improve
tagging regressions (we have indeed gotten a lot better!). So I've found
a couple things to help:
1) Have 3.3 installed and at least check current fresh and 3.3 (if it's
in 3.3, we know not a regression, can update version)
2) Ask the user to test their own bug - link to the page with old
releases
(http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/) - say
it helps a lot and it _could_ potentially help get the bug fixed faster;
3) Quickly explain what version field means (oldest version not latest
version)

There are several hundred bugs available - and this is an under-estimate
as they only include bugs that are tagged as regression - if I had to
guess we have _at minimum_ twice as many bugs that could use a bibisect.
Correct tagging is crucial moving forward :-D


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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Interoperability Test File

[Joel Madero]

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 interop - this is a great test file; (3) just wanted to
 say hi :)
 These are exactly the kind of bugs that bring bad reputation to
 LibreOffice...

 Interoperability and Regressions...

 I can confirm the first one (#93637) and possibly others (like the image in
 the header) is a Regression from branch 3.6
So let's focus more on tagging everything correctly in whiteboard. I
think I even missed some stuff here so if these are particularly bad
from QA stand point (and thus can be brought up during ESC...to suggest
they get looked at) they should be consistently tagged I think as follows:

Whiteboard: filter:docx (or whatever filter), interoprability,
bibisectRequest/bibisected/bisected;
Keyword: regression

With those we can easily identify how many and how serious they are.


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] Interoperability Test File

[Joel Madero]

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
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93639
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93640
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93642
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93641


Just thought if anyone wants to: (1) look at the bugs; (2) if we have
someone tracking interop - this is a great test file; (3) just wanted to
say hi :)


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/

Interoperability Test File

[Joel Madero]

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
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93637
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93639
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93644
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93640
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93642
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93641


Just thought if anyone wants to: (1) look at the bugs; (2) if we have
someone tracking interop - this is a great test file; (3) just wanted to
say hi :)


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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 regards to anything in this because it's just a lot of 
insist on a massive amount of changes and telling volunteers how to do 
their volunteering. Really not how the project works.



Best,
Joel

On 07/29/2015 05:16 PM, Miguel Ángel wrote:
I have had this mail in the freeze for months, but seeing the 
discussion about unit test on dev's ML, the interest for the Help 
Authoring Extension, and the recent thread in QA ML about how recruit.


There are a lot of fantastic changes and improvements in LibreOffice, 
what I'm sure is a pride for all of us.


But, always there is a but, my perception on a common feel about 
LibreOffice, is that it has a lot of improvements but with too much 
issues.


To find the best way in doing the things, there is not other way than 
to be a bit critics with our self and test if we are doing the things 
so well as we can.


What I perceive is that everyone does what she/he likes and how she/he 
likes, well, maybe a bit exaggerated from my side.


Sure it was fine in the beginning of the project, because at those 
times the priority was to go forward, but some time ago we should have 
started to change to look for a better way. 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Looking-for-a-new-approach-in-QA-workflow-tc4052468.html


I know sometimes it's needed even more it's indispensable, force 
things and go a step forward to moving ahead.


But I'm feel obligated to insist, that at least a very basic steps to 
follow, need to be established, specially about new improvements.


a) New additions, and specially modifications, implies changes that 
always affect someone in someway, then have a previous discussion in 
the right place of the project, finding the pros and cons, to reach a 
minimal consensus, allows the Author have more security about what is 
doing, having a first feedback for a better implementation.


b) At least with the first commit of any addition, and with new 
changes, a breve explanation, about:

 - What it's the target?
 - How it supposed it must work?

c) Announce in QA ML when the implementation is ready to verify, with 
what and how verify by QA, so we can do a truth QA job.


d) Encourage make public the intentions about new works, because maybe 
others have tried first and someone can help in some way, avoiding 
duplicated works.


Often putting black on white forces oneself understand better and 
rethink about what is doing, helping in to do it better.


Help others to help, specially for verification purposes. Sometimes is 
hard to help people in forums/ML, but even worse, looking for 
something, when there is not any kind of help in the program and nowhere.


IMHO I's unacceptable having implementations in LibreOffice without a 
minimal help, for me a job without help, it's not finished and it 
shouldn't be released.


I have not doubt, that improving the QA only can leads to a less prone 
to error improvements - less developing time - more time for more 
improvements.


Really, e.g., we can't find a way to have professionals, helping in 
develop a better QA process, when we have the opportunity.


Is there any problem on having a basic rules?, or it's possible e.g. 
don't follow the languages rules to write the code.


We must take into consideration that the whole merit for a quality job 
it's for their Author, so I can't see any issue for their side.


Miguel Ángel.

An open project needs open minds.

___
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/


___
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] bugzilla versions cleanup proposals

[Joel Madero]

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...

 -
 1 - remove the all versions items
 -
 actually we have 7 of those items for 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.0, 4.1 and
 4.2 and there's no 4.3 all versions
Disagree here - we did discuss this at length and there is a reason why
we have it. For instance Red Hat is still running on an old version of
LibreOffice and we want to give the option to report against those
versionI'm sure there are minutes and/or email threads discussing
this at length.

 -
 2- END-OF-LIFE version collapse from 6 to 3 months
 -
 in order to shorten the list it was decided that all the alphas, betas
 and RCs of an END-OF-LIFE branch should be hidden after 6 months from
 the EOL date, leaving just the final releases visible.

 I think the 6 months period is unnecessary too long and can be safely
 reduced to 3.

 let's take the example of the 4.3.x branch
 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan#4.3_release

 the EOL was May 27, 2015. with the current 6 months waiting time we
 will do the cleanup on November 27, 2015...  by that date the 4.4.x
 will be EOL too and the 5.0.x will be in a very advanced stage with
 LibO 5.0.4 available

 so I think that it will be very unlikely at the end of 2015 to see
 people submitting new bugs about the alphas, betas and RCs of the
 4.3.x branch.
Again disagree - there's no reason really outside of slight aesthetics
to do thislots of people are running older versions and because
version is supposed to be oldest version...it makes sense to leave
these available.

Should be discussed at QA IRC Meeting but my vote goes to no on both.

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/

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Start Center

[Joel Madero]

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 repo version
 2015-07-10, the shortcut keys in the left pane are no
 longer underscored, and it is necessary to qualify the
 shortcut keys with Alt+.  Is this change intentional?
 Windows (daily build, 2015-07-23) does not have this
 change.

 (2) The keys up-arrow and down-arrow move the selection,
 indicated by a fine outline, through the options in the
 top part of the left pane.  This seems to have been the
 case since the introduction of the left pane, in Start
 Center, but I somehow expected to be able to select the
 Create options this way.  Am I wrong to be surprised?

 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/

___
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 #92434

[Joel Madero]

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 really never be used unless you know what it means -
that the bug was reported FIXED by a developer and someone on the bug
report still sees the issue on the release that the developer marked it
as FIXED for - else UNCONFIRMED or NEW (confirmed)...if the bug went to
WORKSFORME then UNCONFIRMED is probably best to get another person to
confirm the issue;

3) Comments should include your version of LibreOffice, your operating
system, and if the bug report doesn't already have clear repro steps and
simple attachments, then add those as well.

Thanks!


Best,
Joel

On 07/25/2015 05:10 AM, Dan Lewis wrote:
   I have downloaded 5.0.0.4 RC4 this morning. I will be checking
 this bug against it. If I find a problem, do I add a comment to the
 bug, or do I file a new bug? Two days ago, I added a comment to this
 bug after testing it against that day's daily build. The bug was still
 there. I reopened it at that point. This is why I am asking. I'm not
 sure I did the right thing in reopening the bug.
  I will list my results by this afternoon (I live in eastern US).

 Dan


 ___
 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/

___
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] Bugzilla: Temporarily reverting patch to Importance fields

[Joel Madero]

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 bug? I'm looking at the code now and probably can get a
fix by this weekend.


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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 bug? I'm looking at the code now and probably can get a
fix by this weekend.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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). :)

 The user swears that he purges the directory and it re-corrupts at
 some point...
 Actually the solution is to find what causes profile corruption (but a
 Repair option would be an intermediate solution for MANY problems)

 How can we make TDF and the Devs take this problem seriously?
We can't make anything happen. They are volunteers (just like you) -
no one dictates how other people work.

It *might* be a reasonable tender request.

@Pedro - if you want you can submit a grant proposal that we invest in
developing this option. The more information you have the better (such
as price to implement, how many bugs were fixed just by deleting the
profile, etc). Then submit the proposal to treasurer account.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:

 jmadero wrote
  We can't make anything happen. They are volunteers (just like you) -
  no one dictates how other people work.
 
  It *might* be a reasonable tender request.
 
  @Pedro - if you want you can submit a grant proposal that we invest in
  developing this option. The more information you have the better (such
  as price to implement, how many bugs were fixed just by deleting the
  profile, etc). Then submit the proposal to treasurer account.

 That is simply not true. Many (most?) developers are paid by their
 companies
 to work on LibreOffice (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Collabora, etc). The myth that
 everyone is a volunteer and that Open Source is developed for free is
 nothing more than a myth.


True - but we don't have power over them either ;) So what difference does
it make to me...in my eyes they are all volunteers (or at least not under
TDF control)


 I assume that current developers don't work on these features because they
 don't find it interesting or that no company instructs them to work on it.

Probably



 If TDF is convinced that this is important then they can do the call for
 tender themselves (like they did for LibreOffice Viewer for Android)

TDF builds an eco system where doers can do - Android was somewhat unique.
The other tenders that we've done all have had backers that thought the
issue was *particularly* important and thus put in the time and energy
(which is a lot) to tender it.


 Anyway you are a member of the Board of Directors... Aren't you convinced
 that this is important?


Sure - but not more important than the other 1000 things on my plate right
now. I don't have the time to do yet another tender, build the support,
find the money, etc... etc... The new grant program is meant to encourage
our members (who are also doers to be more involved with the financing
projects and see what a commitment it is to execute something to the end.
There's only so much we (as the group of directors, deputies, and staff)
can handle...and, I'm stretched way too thin to take 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/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] Weekly and Daily Bug Summary

[Joel Madero]

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 setup. For any of your needs please fill out this:

http://tdf.io/qastatsfeedback


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/

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

[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 it in NEEDINFO and asking for more information
(locales, dictionaries installed, etc... etc). I think this is user
error to be honest but I could be wrong. I think if I put it back to
NEEDINFO the users involved will just go on a tirade about me ;)


Best,
Joel

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Pedro pedl...@gmail.com wrote:

 jmadero wrote
  Anyone aware of spell check issues with Windows 7? Bug#92150 indicates
  that
  this has been an issue for some time - a user confirmed the original
  report
  - but unfortunately neither user has been very helpful in terms of
 getting
  useful information.

 The bug report doesn't really help... The first user is in South Africa
 (maybe that is the root of the problem) running Win 7 x64 while the second
 is also running Win 7 x64 but seems to be US based...


 jmadero wrote
  Anyone else aware of this? If so - can we get some decent non-dramatic
  reproducible steps and then try to figure out what version it broke in.

 Spelling works correctly under Windows 7 (but I always do a Custom
 installation with English US dictionaries and UI only, removing other
 variants)

 I could try a Standard install but my guess is that this would help
 http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/afrikaans-spell-checker

 BTW the extensions search engine really SUCKS!!! Searching africa will NOT
 find african... how lame is that?

 Hope this helps...

 Pedro



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Spell-Check-on-Windows-7-tp4152554p4152565.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/




-- 
*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] Spell Check on Windows 7

[Joel Madero]

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 it in NEEDINFO and asking for more information
 (locales, dictionaries installed, etc... etc). I think this is user
 error to be honest but I could be wrong. I think if I put it back to
 NEEDINFO the users involved will just go on a tirade about me ;)

 We have a problem here that spell checking doesn't work in LibO
 PortableApps on different PCs. I don't know if it is the same problem
 but I will have a look in the evening.

Awesome thanks K-J :)
___
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] MAB/Priority and Severity

[Joel Madero]

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 as a reocurring item for the Robinson 
 and
 the rest of the call to look at during the QA section of the ESC call:

  
 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTchfield=prioritychfieldfrom=-8dchfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=highestlist_id=545001priority=highestproduct=LibreOfficequery_format=advancedresolution=---

 It shows:

 - open bugs
 - that were changed to priority highest (thus a MAB) in the last 8 days
   (aka ~since the last call)
 - and currently are still priority highest (and thus a MAB)

 This is for the ESC to both be aware of newly marked important bugs -- and 
 also
 to weed out one or another wrongly marked high priority bug. Also, this should
 help us keep the total number of high priority bugs both under control and on
 the radar.

 @Robinson: Can you take that up?
Along with this - I created the patch months ago that is sitting in the
test instance to block priority/severity from being changed by
non-contributors. Beluga and I put in some time adding all devs and QA
members (or at least the vast majority) to a new group in bugzilla so
that they will have the rights without requesting. At this point I'm
just waiting for Robinson to give me some feedback as to what the hold
up is.

@Robinson - if texting is easier than IRC or email - feel free to text
me with suggestions for times that we can push this change once and for
all. I have 3 more that I intend on making but I want to wait until this
one is done before doing more.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 as a reocurring item for the Robinson 
 and
 the rest of the call to look at during the QA section of the ESC call:

  
 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=NEWbug_status=ASSIGNEDbug_status=REOPENEDbug_status=RESOLVEDbug_status=VERIFIEDbug_status=CLOSEDbug_status=NEEDINFObug_status=PLEASETESTchfield=prioritychfieldfrom=-8dchfieldto=Nowchfieldvalue=highestlist_id=545001priority=highestproduct=LibreOfficequery_format=advancedresolution=---

 It shows:

 - open bugs
 - that were changed to priority highest (thus a MAB) in the last 8 days
   (aka ~since the last call)
 - and currently are still priority highest (and thus a MAB)

 This is for the ESC to both be aware of newly marked important bugs -- and 
 also
 to weed out one or another wrongly marked high priority bug. Also, this should
 help us keep the total number of high priority bugs both under control and on
 the radar.

 @Robinson: Can you take that up?
Along with this - I created the patch months ago that is sitting in the
test instance to block priority/severity from being changed by
non-contributors. Beluga and I put in some time adding all devs and QA
members (or at least the vast majority) to a new group in bugzilla so
that they will have the rights without requesting. At this point I'm
just waiting for Robinson to give me some feedback as to what the hold
up is.

@Robinson - if texting is easier than IRC or email - feel free to text
me with suggestions for times that we can push this change once and for
all. I have 3 more that I intend on making but I want to wait until this
one is done before doing more.

Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice-qa] problem; help request

[Joel Madero]

Hi Kenneth -

This mailing list is actually for contributors dealing with quality
assurance. You'll likely want to ask the user mailing list - more people
monitor that with a wider response. You list a whole list of issues and
it's usually hard to get responses with meta questions.

My suggestion is to:
1) Email user list;
2) Each email addresses a single issue
3) If others see the same issues - best bet is to report a bug at
bugs.libreoffice.org - a volunteer then would have to volunteer for to fix
the issue (if there is one).


Warmest Regards,
Joel

P.S. I highly recommend not including cell phone numbers in the mailing
list - the emails are public

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Kenneth Koym koy...@gmail.com wrote:

 Greetings:

 I wonder if the libreOfficeWriter problem can be addressed there. Mine is
 nested in Ubuntu 14.04.2.

 I ask your assist, getting a libreofficewriter re-config/work around,
 which re-gains ability to get documents to open, like they have for five
 years. Just did a sudo apt-get purge libreoffice followed by sudo apt-get
 install libreoffice || sudo apt-get autoremove || sudo apt-get clean. No
 difference after logging off and restarting.

 Nice to have the clean up but plain old truth I, a 76 year old, want the
 regular size file to open, not one that is one third the size. Why? I fight
 macular degeneration/going blind if I do not use good habits, Alred
 Vitamins as prescribed by my MD.

 I don't see a way to post a sample; but since late Friday June 12th all
 newly opened empty document work spacess are one third the size. Saved
 documents open in the original readible font point size. Not so this
 morning June 15th. The old docs are now smaller in size than they were
 originally written; and, it is not feasible to edit or rewrite a
 libreoffice writer created document on this PC. I do not see the same
 problem on ubuntu forums.

 What happens? The prompt always flashes. The prompt [and any wording I
 compose] looks like a 7 point not 11 or 12-point type. The proposed page
 you'd expect to work on is about one third the correct size

 LibreOfficeWriter is not working correctly. Wish I new a terminal
 instruction showing Report my fowl up assessment; so I could post
 responses that reveals errors.
 Problems are:
 a. pages open approximately one third of what I saw until last +/- June
 10th or 11th.
 b. this morning June 15th, text on two or three lines appear to be block
 marked. But to my knowledge I have not set up any such commands.
 c. you can houver over text you wish to edit but changes cannot be made
 readily and
 d. once you get to the end of a line, the auto movement down to the next
 line in the page is frozen.
 e. to get to the next line, you must literally move the mouse, telling the
 prompt to go there.

 Again, I believe someone other than me has control over my PC. Yes, it
 could be a virus or ??? Being I'm a federal retiree, it's feasible a Non US
 source decided to hit my PC. I'd prefer to believe a config error or an odd
 virus causing the unwanted difficulties.

 From the 16th-23rd I'll be out of pocket with my G-kids so any help can
 slide till I return or get another machine.

 ken cell 512.828.9778

 ___
 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/




-- 
*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] QA Meeting Minutes - 2015-06-17 (PLUS: BugHunting Session all this weekend!)

[Joel Madero]

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 see the wiki page here:
 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugHunting_Session_5.0.0_RC1

 Ok, so where can I find the RC1?
 Not at this place (as mentioned in the wiki):
 http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/pre-releases/
 nor at
 http://www.libreoffice.org/download/pre-releases/

It's building now - should be available in the next couple hours.


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/

MAB/Priority and Severity

[Joel Madero]

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) *MAB will be _equivalent_ to _highest_* (so anything that you
previously would have thrown on MAB list should be set to highest);
3) Severity should be according to the flowchart
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/06/Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg;
4) Because users will be locked out it is incredibly important to
explain to them why we set the importance/severity the way we did -
leave a nice comment ;)

*Important: *If there are _any_ issues with this plan, you've got about
a week to shoot us an email so that we can work out any kinks. This was
in the making for the past 2 years and we're finally there.

Best,
Joel

[1] Robinson and myself will be combing through commiters and triagers
to try to add as many people as possible to contributor list as
possible without having to personally request access - if you notice
that you do not have privileges and want them you can email anyone with
admin privileges from bugzilla, if you want these privileges you can
request them. Without requesting contributor privileges you will be
prevented from changing severity/priority - all triagers/devs should
have these privileges.

[2] If you're interested in getting admin privileges please shoot me an
email asking for those and we can discuss it - for those of you who have
been really active in QA land, I encourage you to request the privileges
so that you can help maintain the bug tracker :)
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

[Libreoffice-qa] MAB/Priority and Severity

[Joel Madero]

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) *MAB will be _equivalent_ to _highest_* (so anything that you
previously would have thrown on MAB list should be set to highest);
3) Severity should be according to the flowchart
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/06/Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg;
4) Because users will be locked out it is incredibly important to
explain to them why we set the importance/severity the way we did -
leave a nice comment ;)

*Important: *If there are _any_ issues with this plan, you've got about
a week to shoot us an email so that we can work out any kinks. This was
in the making for the past 2 years and we're finally there.

Best,
Joel

[1] Robinson and myself will be combing through commiters and triagers
to try to add as many people as possible to contributor list as
possible without having to personally request access - if you notice
that you do not have privileges and want them you can email anyone with
admin privileges from bugzilla, if you want these privileges you can
request them. Without requesting contributor privileges you will be
prevented from changing severity/priority - all triagers/devs should
have these privileges.

[2] If you're interested in getting admin privileges please shoot me an
email asking for those and we can discuss it - for those of you who have
been really active in QA land, I encourage you to request the privileges
so that you can help maintain the bug tracker :)
___
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] my reduced QA activity

[Joel Madero]

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 seems going towards  resolution) reduced drastically the
 time I can dedicate to the LibO project.

 I'm sorry I can't give more help in this moment and I hope in the
 future to be back on track.

 Thanks for your understanding.
 tommy


 well, things going better (expecially from the medical side).
 as you may have noticed I'm back on track squashing a few bugs during
 spare time.  :-)
:-D I have seen you around more and I'm happy to see you - you're an
invaluable member of the project and I'm glad the health stuff is
working out!

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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
 where progress can be measured. 190 isn't a vast number in the over all
 scheme of things.

 What would work ideally for me is to someone get the subset of all
 crashes that are ~100% reproducible under Linux and ordered by the
 number of steps required to reproduce. Any ideas on how to generate that
 subset ?
Bjoern already largely addressed this but bugzilla is hugely limited for
organizing.

What I think would be minimum (and can be done) is:
Confirm each crash on 5.0;
_Ensure_ that each has easy steps;
_Ensure_ that each has been checked for regressions (and tagged
accordingly in whiteboard/version field);
_Ensure_ that each has a debug log;
Prioritize correctly (Major/Critical High/Highest)

For the most straight forward ones that have easy steps we can just mark
them as critical + highest - signaling that they are easy to reproduce
and everything is there for devs to tackle them.

Best,
Joel

FYIW: I've been pushing this for about a year now ;)
___
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/

Cosmetic Bugzilla Cleanup

[Joel Madero]

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
lot of unnecessary noise. Now that we have our own bugzilla instance we
can (I think) turn off email notifications, do the mass change, then
turn them back on, saving everyone a great deal of email spam.

Note: This doesn't apply for mass pings that we are hoping for a response :)

Just for an example - the mass cleanup of EasyHacks to camelCase I guess
created a ton of noise (dev list was cc'ed, thousands of devs spammed
tens or hundreds of times). Not ideal so hopefully we can avoid this
in the future.


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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, 13 maggio 2015 18:25:05
 Oggetto: [Libreoffice-qa] MSO 2013 Excel - Template Roundtripping

 Hi All,
 Hi Joel

 Please let me know if you have some time to explore this. I am starting
 some initial things this afternoon but hope not to have to do the entire
 thing myself :-b

 Count me in :)

 Best,
 Marina


___
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/

Goodbye MAB - Hello Highest

[Joel Madero]

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:
*# of users affected;
*regression
*fully triaged (with bibisect, crash log, etc...)
*obviously major, critical, blocker make it to the list faster than
minor/normal issues

Guide:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg

On the test bugzilla server we now have priority/severity locked -
hopefully this gets moved to the actual instance of bugzilla in the
coming weeks - it still needs tested thoroughly (see previous email)

Worst case if this fails, we can always move highest to a new MAB
tracker but I'm really hoping this is unnecessary.


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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;
  o Severity
  o Priority

*To test:*

 1. Head over to our test instance of bugzilla:
*https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/*
 1. As a starting point you can check by going here:
https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89058
(you should see fields locked out)
 2. Contact me to get added to contributor group (include your email
that you use on bugzilla)
 3. Create a test login that won't have any privileges

Now you should be able to report bugs and compare what happens with your
two users (the one in contributors and the new test account you create)

*What Needs Testing
*

 1. Basically do everything you could think of, create a bug with both
accounts, compare your access, change status (NEW, FIXED, ETC),
see what impact you see, report any issues to me directly (please
include repro steps to save me time :) )


*Goal:
**We hope to abandon MAB once and for all and replace with objectively
accurate priorities/severity
*Being added to contributor group will be *very* easy, we'll document
it on the wiki but basically it will be emailing the QA list with a
generic email that requests being added. We don't want this to be a
hurdle beyond users manipulating bug priority/severity.

Contact me with any questions/concerns


Thanks all


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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;
  o Severity
  o Priority

*To test:*

 1. Head over to our test instance of bugzilla:
*https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/*
 1. As a starting point you can check by going here:
https://bugzilla-test.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89058
(you should see fields locked out)
 2. Contact me to get added to contributor group (include your email
that you use on bugzilla)
 3. Create a test login that won't have any privileges

Now you should be able to report bugs and compare what happens with your
two users (the one in contributors and the new test account you create)

*What Needs Testing
*

 1. Basically do everything you could think of, create a bug with both
accounts, compare your access, change status (NEW, FIXED, ETC),
see what impact you see, report any issues to me directly (please
include repro steps to save me time :) )


*Goal:
**We hope to abandon MAB once and for all and replace with objectively
accurate priorities/severity
*Being added to contributor group will be *very* easy, we'll document
it on the wiki but basically it will be emailing the QA list with a
generic email that requests being added. We don't want this to be a
hurdle beyond users manipulating bug priority/severity.

Contact me with any questions/concerns


Thanks all


Best,
Joel

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Automatic Stats from Bugzilla - Feedback needed

[Joel Madero]

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 particular statistics that you're interested or other things
that you'd like to see, please fill out the following form:
http://tdf.io/qastatsfeedback


Thanks!


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

[Libreoffice-qa] Bibisect Requests

[Joel Madero]

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 properly and quickly 
bibisected bugs (devs seem to jump onto them quickly if we tackle them 
quickly).



All and any efforts *much* appreciated as always.


Thanks so much everyone!


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] Advanced Triaging - Tutorials?

[Joel Madero]

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 think it's a good opportunity to document how to go about doing the
requested triage work - honestly it's beyond my skills right now but I'd
love to learn.

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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 window.
I'm constantly being told it's being used wrong and having to adjust the
settings.

 a) The person its assigned to may have moved on, changed jobs, or died
 and so is not in a position to help anymore so the bug appears to
 belong to someone, but isn't really and anyone looking for bugs to fix
 will generally pass over it given that it seems to be assigned to
 someone already.
okay.

 b) Lots of bugs are superficially similar but different causes. I mean
 if a document X crashes in 4.1, then was fine for 4.2 and 4.3 and then
 crashes in 4.4, the odds that the exact problem fixed in 4.2 was
 re-introduced in 4.4 are very low vs that a new different problem was
 introduced.

 Better is to file a new bug with the exact means to reproduce, cc
 whoever fixed the similar previous problem and tag the bug as possibly
 related to the similar solved case.
Okay - so what should the actual REOPENED be used for (if anything)?
Should only developers use it? Since QA is using it wrong (I think you
referring to one I changed), users use it wrong all the timejust
curious what its purpose is.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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
 + more ideas much appreciated
 I am not a dev and nor an expert about GSoC, but i want to ask if the
 following issues are suitable to propose:

 1- Improve filtering/sorting in Calc
 -- Filtering by cell color, search in filter dialog etc.
 (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76258,
 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89908)
 2- Enhancement of Watermark Feature
 (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Enterprises_nice-to-have#Enhancement_of_Watermark_Feature
 )
 3- Converting presentations to impress
 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34959
 4- Add narration support to Impress

 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 in order to subsidize enterprise users
desires. If this is an enterprise feature - let them pay for support to
get it enabled.

Just my two cents - I'm not a fan of subsidizing others to make money
off of LibreOffice. This only encourages these companies to continue to
sit on the sidelines instead of becoming a member of the community by
using some of the funds that they save by using LibreOffice (over our
competitors) to help fund development within the project.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 in order to subsidize enterprise users
 desires. If this is an enterprise feature - let them pay for support to
 get it enabled.

 Just my two cents - I'm not a fan of subsidizing others to make money
 off of LibreOffice. This only encourages these companies to continue to
 sit on the sidelines instead of becoming a member of the community by
 using some of the funds that they save by using LibreOffice (over our
 competitors) to help fund development within the project.
 I understand you. But there is no a certain borders between enterprise
 usage  and regular usage, it is an office software and most of regular
 users (also small companies) should benefit from them too. Can you
 clearly seperate personale needs and corporate needs? For example
 improved docx support, is it a corporate need or personal need? Should
 it be left as corporates interchanges docs more often?
Sure my general definition is something along the lines of a feature or
enhancement that would predominantly benefit enterprise users and which
day to day users would either not notice at all, or not find entirely
useful. You said that the items you listed were enterprise items - I
didn't think much about them to determine if I agree, but since you said
they were enterprise items, I'll trust your judgment and stick to my
previous remark :-D

 In addtion these are not new or innovative needs for certain
 compaines, these are the functionalities those are already exists in
 other office software, and creates gaps with LibreOffice. I cannot ask
 a small company owner to donate thousands of euros (may be greater
 then their licence cost for years) to have such basic needs while i
 promote LibreOffice them to reduce their licencing costs. I ask them
 for a decent and regular donation...

Some basic needs is not entirely useful. Let's say a company with 20
employees switch from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice - we're talking
about $2k a year that they'll be saving. If they put 20% back into the
ecosystem to build these basic needs items we'll be in good shape.
What would be best is if people like you (who advocate that they donate)
- get a group together of these small companies to share resources to
get these things implemented. If you could get 100 small companies
together, each giving $1k a year - and who speak with one voice as to
what these basic needs items areyou'd make *tremendous* progress.


 It is really hard to do marketing in developing countries such as our
 country, and it can take years to us to find corporate sponsors to add
 such 'old' functionalites to LibreOffice. It can be a long discussion
 and has many perspectives; marketing, free software awareness, free
 riders etc.
Sure - that's a marketing issue. This is about spreading the message
about the benefit of openness, transparency, and a *different* kind of
software where we collectively seek the best solutions and to grow an
ecosystem that sustains people's livelihoods.

 I don't know if there is a policy that seperates enterprise needs and
 leaves them to be funded from companeis, if so having a funding pool
 may be good and we can drive SME's to donate there, otherwise it
 becomes irrational to promote LibreOffice to them.
+1 to funding pool - but that should be separate from TDF proper and
maybe could be a pool that does tenders about specific things that a
collective group of people/small businesses want to see. If such an
organization arises (which I highly encourage) - I would be the first
one within TDF to support them and try to find ways to assist in their
success.

If you try to do such a thing - feel free to contact me (personally,
outside of the mailing list) to brainstorm about possibilities. I know
Robinson is also quite interested in this subject.

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] Could Anyone Put a Netbook to Use

[Joel Madero]

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 see what we can do.

Note that one of them has a German keyboard layout.

Email me directly if you could put it to use - let me know what you
would use it for, and how much use you would put it to :) I just hate to
see machines sitting around not being put to use.


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/

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

[Joel Madero]

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 run
 it--currently return invalid.

 Stuart




 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bugs-with-Backtrace-but-Not-Reproduced-tp4142359p4142406.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/

___
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] Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced

[Joel Madero]

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  - at least one or two of
 those have backtraces but have had other members of QA say they cannot
 reproduce.

 Got a link for those issues handy ?
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=525899regetlastlist=525899

There are the 8 crashers currently reported and unconfirmed. At least 2
of them have backtraces - one of the other ones has some kind of a
system dump or something...

If we can just mark as NEW then I suggest we start automatically asking
users to do a backtrace (at least suggest and link to the wiki). Might
save a few rounds of NEEDINFO - UNCONFIRMED - NEEDINFO - WFM -
UNCONFIRMED ;)

Best,
Joel



 Alex

 ___
 List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
 Mail address: libreoffice...@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 mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

To clarify...put to use means put to use for LIbreoffice not personal use ;)
On Mar 6, 2015 11:08 AM, Tom Davies tomc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi :)
 I would love one but i think Hazel, Jean, Peter and many others in here
 deserve them a LOT more than me!
 Regards from
 Tom :)

 On 6 March 2015 at 15:14, 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 outside of QA could use them, I'll talk to
 Florian to see what we can do.

 Note that one of them has a German keyboard layout.

 Email me directly if you could put it to use - let me know what you
 would use it for, and how much use you would put it to :) I just hate to
 see machines sitting around not being put to use.


 Best,
 Joel

 --
 To unsubscribe e-mail to:
 documentation+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
 Problems?
 http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
 Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
 List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
 All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
 deleted



___
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] Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced

[Joel Madero]

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
reproduce.


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/

Bugs with Backtrace but Not Reproduced

[Joel Madero]

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
reproduce.


Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

needAdvice bugs

[Joel Madero]

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 developers to ensure that they are our bugs and that they are in
fact bugs. After a developer looks at them, please remove needAdvice
from the whiteboard. Thanks all!

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=523710order=bug_status%2Cchangeddate%2Cpriority%2Cbug_severityquery_based_on=query_format=advancedresolution=---status_whiteboard=needAdvicestatus_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr

Best,
Joel
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

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 wonder if Joel is planning to do another run of the NEW bugs ping.

 first test in january had very good results.

 of the 338 NEW bugs pinged we had 68 that turned into fixed (most of
 them WFM)
 with a 16.35% ratio which is almost 1 out of 6.
 Indeed it's in my list of things to do. I'm just swamped. I'll get it
 done by March 1st though.


 Best,
 Joel


 take your time, there's no need to rush.
New ping test being done now - link to the bugs that are being pinged:

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=523308longdesc=This%20NEW%20Message%20was%20generated%20on%3A%202015-02-19longdesc_type=allwordssubstrquery_format=advancedresolution=---

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/