Re: [Libreoffice-qa] what happened to Reiner?
Tommy wrote Retiered some time ago [can't find thread]. Very sad Ok, I was afraid that he left the project... anyway he did a very good job here and everybody will welcome him if he comes back. He did: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Role-of-the-QA-calls-tp4052308.html -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-what-happened-to-Reiner-tp4064927p4065008.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: Stack trace in Windows
V Stuart Foote wrote So having a bit of a chore when grabbing a stack trace in Windows. Application to use seems to be the Sysinternals (Microsoft TechNet) Russinovich Cogswell developed Process Monitor utility. It will completely capture to log ALL system activity on a Windows OS. The problem then becomes filtering the log to identify the faulting component. Hi! There is a guide about the whole process available at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/How_to_get_a_backtrace_with_WinDbg Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Stack-trace-in-Windows-tp4051411p4051728.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: minutes of ESC call ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote + Tollef's great work (thanks to TDF funding) on bugzilla: + https://bugs.freedesktop.org/page.cgi?id=weekly-bug-summary.html + shows the QA heros: top bug closers, stats of opened / shut etc. Hi! Great to see useful pages already used in other projects start coming here, but it would be better to have fields with customizable values (more like on http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=gcc/weekly-bug-summary.html) along with product selector for just LibreOffice stats. And as we browse other Bugzillas for new ideas - I really like new personal and product dashboards introduced on bugzilla.mozilla.org. Really nice piece of code - see this blog post http://globau.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/bugzilla-mozilla-org-upgraded-to-v4-2/. Hope to see them here some day. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/minutes-of-ESC-call-tp4050850p4050945.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Amazon Cloud
Florian Effenberger wrote Hello, we have received a voucher for the Amazon Cloud, and after playing with it for a while, I think it could be a good extension for our current infrastructure. [...] Anyone has already experience with using the Amazon Cloud for compiling? Hi! Mozilla moved Firefox build/testing infrastructure to AWS. You should check following resources and ask the Mozilla people in person for details: http://oduinn.com/blog/2012/07/11/releng-production-systems-go-hybrid-now-available-on-aws/ http://oduinn.com/blog/2012/11/27/releng-production-systems-now-in-3-aws-regions/ http://atlee.ca/blog/2012/12/14/behind-the-clouds/ http://atlee.ca/blog/2013/02/01/now-testing-firefox-in-aws/ Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Amazon-Cloud-tp4047077p4048837.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Minutes - QA Call 01/11/2013
jmadero wrote One of the main issues is that FDO doesn't allow you to go from RESOLVED - WORKSFORME back to UNCONFIRMED. Hi! Not true. RESOLVED WORKSFORMEUNCONFIRMED transition is possible with current fdo status workflow. Just checked that moment ago myself. See this bug activity: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_activity.cgi?id=45941 Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Minutes-QA-Call-11-16-2012-tp4019790p403.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Minutes - QA Call 01/11/2013
jmadero wrote If you mark a bug as WFM, you are unable to go directly back to UNCONFIRMED - which for me is strange, I understand if it's marked as FIXED but WFM shouldn't block you from doing UNCONFIRMED again. Hi! Are you sure about that? See this bug activity table: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_activity.cgi?id=46254. WFMUNCONFIRMED transition there. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Minutes-QA-Call-11-16-2012-tp4019790p4030926.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Minutes - QA Call 01/11/2013
Hi! Please explain little more the following: jmadero wrote -Status clarification (New vs. Reopened) **Agreed: *Reopened should only be used if the bug is assigned - often Reopened status is used by the Reporters when bug is marked as INVALID, DUPLICATE or WFM, how this new policy will work for those? Will you introduce some Bugzilla checks preventing such transition? jmadero wrote -*Agreed: *NEEDINFO: Used only if most the information is there and the bug can be confirmed but additional information would be useful Request that once information is provided, move bug to NEW not to UNCONFIRMED or REOPENED -*Agreed: *INVALID: If bug cannot be confirmed with information and there just isn't enough information there to reproduce the bug, we will move to INVALID Comment shouldn't ask user to change status once additional information is provided (if additional information is provided), instead QA member should change status once they can confirm bug. Very often the bug can't be confirmed, some attachments or STRs are missing - NEEDINFO was a perfect marking for such bugs after asking for additional info, also clearing UNCONFIRMED backlog. Now I should mark such bugs as INVALID? So, no babysitting policy implemented? This is a radical change. Do we care about those reports and if yes how to differentiate between real INVALID requests (like bug clones etc.) and needing info INVALID bugs? By NEEDINFO keyword? Thanks in advance for additional info. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Minutes-QA-Call-11-16-2012-tp4019791p4030047.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Cppcheck reports
julien2412 wrote Also, I uploaded detailed reports, I meant all files concerned by cppcheck reports + index page with links on source files htmlized You'll find it there: http://serval2412.free.fr/cppcheck_reports.tar.bz2 Just uncompress and browse Hi! Could this be placed at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/ joining clang_reports, lcov_reports and regenerated once in a while? Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cppcheck-reports-tp4028560p4028571.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] [libreoffice-design] Send Feedback Option
Stefan Knorr (Astron)-2 wrote here's a link to an HTML mockup: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/87946285/libreoffice/feedback/feedback-page.html Hi! Did you think about setting up LibreOffice Feedback page using Mozilla software? It's code is available at github: https://github.com/mozilla/input.mozilla.org Skin this, make links to other LO resources and you have a ready to go system, quite important for any hot issues and quality in general. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-libreoffice-design-Send-Feedback-Option-tp4021508p4021626.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/
rename the URL for feedback to something more positive
rename the URL for feedback to something more positive Change-Id: Iea248eeb3c3eacf9b0f123daa52516f5c1f0259c - ::rtl::OUString sURL(http://hub.libreoffice.org/file-a-bug/?version=; + utl::ConfigManager::getAboutBoxProductVersion() + + ::rtl::OUString sURL(http://hub.libreoffice.org/send-feedback/?version=; + utl::ConfigManager::getAboutBoxProductVersion() Hi! I have a question for a code above: what is a purpose of this change? This Send feedback instead of File a bug ATM redirects to Bug Submission Assistant anyway and IMHO Bugzilla is a bug tracker software, not a feedback system. Does this mean that preparations for a LibreOffice Feedback system started and it is going to be available in near future like for instance http://input.mozilla.org/en-US/feedback? I triaged many support only questions or complaints in Bugzilla and hope to not get more of them in the future (this is unnecessary noise). If this is not what is happening then we should use the right words in the source code. Bug is a negative word if not fixed only :). Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/rename-the-URL-for-feedback-to-something-more-positive-tp4021342.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: static clang source code analysis (Code Review Requested)
John Smith wrote Hi, Here's a clang static source code analysis of the latest git sources : http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/clang_reports/master~2012-11-04_17.27.13/ Hi! Is it comparable with the previous one? Hope you will update lcov one too. Any chances to have those two updated on a regular basis? Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/static-clang-source-code-analysis-Code-Review-Requested-tp4016826p4016962.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of the QA Call tomorrow, Tuesday 1300UTC
Sophie Gautier wrote I would propose to use QA Contact field for this purpose, at least when in the processing (translation, gathering more details) phase. If it could be the qa@fr list, then it's ok. Hi! This have to be Bugzilla registered account. If there is one for qa@fr, then it could be added. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-QA-Call-tomorrow-Tuesday-1300UTC-tp4014857p4016156.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of the QA Call tomorrow, Tuesday 1300UTC
Sophie Gautier wrote I've discussed the process with our FR team and they are ok to handle it. Hi! Great to hear that! All we need now is a list of people, by language, who can be cc'ed to work on the bug when it has non English summary and seems to be a valid report at first sight. Sophie Gautier wrote We have to make sure that the bug filled on BZ will be tagged as already managed by our team (nobody to search on duplicates again or tests on other OS, version etc.) and that they will marked as confirmed or even assigned to somebody. I would propose to use QA Contact field for this purpose, at least when in the processing (translation, gathering more details) phase. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-QA-Call-tomorrow-Tuesday-1300UTC-tp4014857p4015886.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New Easy Hack Tracking System -- Developer Input Required
Hi! Recently I stumbled upon two open source projects (sources are available on github) to get more volunteers by their interests: - in bugs department - see http://www.joshmatthews.net/bugsahoy/ - in the development area - see http://whatcanidoformozilla.org/ Those are very simple sites, where you can just pick up what is interesting to you. You will receive bugs or more informations. Would be cool to discuss implementing those. Maybe as Easy Hack even. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-New-Easy-Hack-Tracking-System-Developer-Input-Required-tp4013528p4014061.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LDTP now works for Linux, Win Mac
Thorsten Behrens wrote Hi there, seen this today - http://nagappanal.blogspot.de/2012/10/ann-automated-testing-on-mac-atomac-101.html Did anyone have experience (positive negative) with that tool? Cheers, -- Thorsten Hi. See http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cobra-WinLDTP-Automation-tp3992246.html for some thoughts... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-LDTP-now-works-for-Linux-Win-Mac-tp4013125p4013160.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: FDO Permissions
Michael Meeks-2 wrote On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 10:33 -0700, bfo wrote: This could be done on per project basis. Unfortunately with Oh ! if we know that this is easy to turn on on a per product basis (ie. a simple bugzilla setting just for our product); then that is trivial to get turned on. Hi. I do not have a clue how this Bugzilla is configured, maintained and is it customize-friendly, but you can control permissions in general either by: - Assigning Group Controls to Products - https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/products.html#product-group-controls - Customizing Who Can Change What - https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/cust-change-permissions.html - having additional granular checks (just for LibreOffice product) as the extension - example starts here http://bzr.mozilla.org/bmo/4.2/annotate/head:/extensions/BMO/Extension.pm#L380 Unfortunately there is no easy clicking in UI way for setting granular permissions, but extensions mechanism can help here. Michael Meeks-2 wrote and incidentally, while I'm here - thanks for all the great work getting windows stack-traces into bugs - that really helps. You do not need to thank me, I think I've seen those already in other threads :). All I, or other potential BT makers, would like to see is a comment in FIXED bug like Good job! That helped a lot. ATM I do not even know if I do those BTs right - nobody commented it. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/FDO-Permissions-tp4007909p4010328.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: FDO Permissions
jmadero wrote My suspicion is that the other freedesktop projects would hate that, and that this is something that we'd need to share with them; making it rather difficult to fix. Hi. This could be done on per project basis. Unfortunately with Michael Meeks wrote Generally we try to avoid things that need freedesktop's bugzilla customising specifically for our one product though. attitude (and the same time paying for enabling build-in features) you can't do much. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/FDO-Permissions-tp4007909p4009924.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: FDO Permissions
jmadero wrote I think that recognizing who is QA and who isn't will become an issue. Hi. It would be possible to create QA Bugzilla group with special icon and then add QA people as members. Icon would be displayed along Bugzilla nick then. See 3.15.1:3 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/groups.html. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/FDO-Permissions-tp4007909p4009925.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [FIXED] Re: master regression: PPT load ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote it should be fixed in the next build iteration. Hi. Checked with: LO 3.7.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: 6737f12 Windows XP Professional SP3 Could not reproduce. All good. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/master-regression-PPT-load-tp4002760p4003438.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: LibreOffice code coverage
Michael Stahl-2 wrote Did anyone make such report for LibreOffice codebase? no, unfortunately we don't know how the unit test coverage ranks exactly on a scale from far too low to infinitesimal :-/ Hi. Thanks to work of John Smith such report is available at http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/lcov_reports/. Any comments? Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901p4003168.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Bug 38840 - Adding coverage analysis to unit tests
John Smith wrote Anyway, the generated html report as it currently is can be found here : http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/lcov_reports/ Hi. Great work! I hope both reports will be generated regularly and help improve quality of LO codebase. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Bug-38840-Adding-coverage-analysis-to-unit-tests-tp4002357p4003185.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: master regression: PPT load ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote I have a slide test-case here: http://users.freedesktop.org/~michael/test-docs/Balmer.ppt It has a number of images, and bullets (and marketing nonsense) in it. It loads and renders fine in 3.6.0 - but in master the majority of the text and images are lost. Hi. Checked with: LO 3.7.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: a8647dd Windows XP Professional SP3 I can confirm. Checked few of my .ppt presentations and all have empty slides with template graphics only. Seems it is serious regression. All is good with LO 3.6.0.4 (Build ID: 932b512). Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/master-regression-PPT-load-tp4002760p4002774.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Static src analysis of LibreOffice
John Smith wrote Not a new report (yet), but the clang analyzer reports have found a permanent home at this location : http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/clang_reports/ Hi! This is great news. Hope this will allow to improve LO codebase in any way. Anyone could comment the results of this scan for not-dev people? Also I am hoping that code coverage sister report will join in soon, I read in other thread that you are making progress in that area, too. Good luck and splendid work so far! Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Static-src-analysis-of-LibreOffice-tp3998343p4002783.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [FIXED] Re: master regression: PPT load ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote Thanks ! :-) turns out it was a line we lost during some comment translation, luckily thanks to Tomaž - it was trivial to find the three day old commit that caused the issue isolate it really fast :-) That's the joy of debugging regressions vs. master I suppose; it should be fixed in the next build iteration. Hi. I could test it thanks to zipped Windows dailies - will check tomorrow's build. Anyway this could be perfect example for bisect Windows HowTo (announced in http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-bibisect-fro-windows-tp4002219.html) - at least git command session presented. Would be great if anyone who is git (bisect) expert could prepare one for Windows as a wiki article, alongside Linux version. Windows people could bisect this way... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/master-regression-PPT-load-tp4002760p4002790.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Michael Meeks-2 wrote There is one already - Bugzilla. I think devs should be teached how to use Bugzilla more. :-) Sure - but a developer's daily interaction involves using many bug trackers - from LibreOffice, to SUSE, RedHat, Deb-bugs, Apache Issues, etc. having a single page that lets you get to them easily can be nice. Hi. This is another major problem... Michael Meeks-2 wrote I agree that wiki pages don't help; but having a convenient developer default-page that makes it easy to get to the bugs you want - and also prompts you with the last 5x new regressions, and a competitive component vs. component bug chart and ... - might do some good. No doubt it could all be done in a pile of Javascript or something :-) Anyway such dashboard could be done like this: Sample screenshot - http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9753/bugzilladashboard.jpg Tool - http://toolness.github.com/bugzilla-dashboard/#username=[bugzilla.mozilla.org username] All this can be done using Bugzilla integrated APIs (or BzAPI https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bugzilla:REST_API) with a help of some mediawiki addons - nice examples: http://christian.legnitto.com/blog/2012/04/18/new-mediawiki-bugzilla-feature/ Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4002780.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: minutes of ESC call ...
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote + want a hard-hacks query - with five hits We can give that a try, but thinking about it that is really easy abused when just triggering on a whiteboard keyword (as in: people adding it to their pet peeve bugs). If that happens, handing over a query with 5 hardcoded bug numbers via mail should be safe and simple. Hi. Flag system of Bugzilla could be used - create put name here flag for LibreOffice product, create grant and request group, add esc and qa team members to them. See https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/flags-overview.html. put name here could follow version scheme. Bugzilla main developer Frédéric Buclin already declared help in flags setup in bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33070. Flag mechanism could be used not just to nominate bugs to fix, blockers etc. but all other Bugzilla activities (bibisect, qawanted and other requests) and therefore not abusing whiteboard field. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/minutes-of-ESC-call-tp4001839p4001913.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Moztrap, some questions
Hi. tl;dr, but IMHO ideal localized MozTrap system could be designed this way: Tests should be written using some kind of special text editor with autocomplete, in generic language (or based on English) using UI strings and then those strings substituted to the language of choice (not only French). The framework should be using .po files only. How to achieve this? I don't know. Maybe integrate with Pootle server or sync with LO sources? This would allow to present UI strings in any language supported by LibreOffice. All this seems like good candidate for GSOC project... My 2 eurocents. Best regards. P.S. Having multilanguage MozTrap can lead us to multilanguage reports in Bugzilla... We do not want multilanguage Bugzilla, don't we? I already have to use translator services in reports submitted by French or Spanish people. Good to learn new languages, but... you know... time consuming while bugs triage. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Moztrap-some-questions-tp4000922p4001926.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Michael Meeks-2 wrote Of course the filters are tested; there were -zero- unit tests for the RTF filter before we started, it is now perhaps -the- most unit tested filter that there is - every bug fix Miklos makes has a nice unit test: better - since the code is shared, that is unit testing a big chunk of the DOCX and perhaps DOC filtering as well. Hi! I noticed that, as I am forced to watch commits to know what is going on in the projects. Good work, should be a part of commit workflow, but IMHO such tests should be placed in the code before importing it to stable branch as a general rule and good coding practice. Michael Meeks-2 wrote Wow - I didn't hear about that; can you give me a few links ? did you use a Windows build with debugging symbols (if not the traces would be next-to-useless sadly). Sure. BTW: if you can make that this page will get a professional review - that would be great. https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/How_to_get_a_backtrace_with_WinDbg Michael Meeks-2 wrote Unfortunately there are problems, the Windows symbol server is IIRC some hideous tangled Microsoft proprietary product that requires a Windows server to push a few binary files (que?). This complicates matters. As you can read in the bug resources I gathered Mozilla guys did it, along with Bug reporting stuff. Whoever is working on it can ask those friedly people for help. One should not reinvent the wheel again and again... Michael Meeks-2 wrote Is there a good list of such bugs ? AFAICS we need a good way to get nice work (like your bugs with backtraces) communicated to development in such a way that they notice do something about it :-) Not sure how to do that - bloating the MAB list is prolly not it though - creative ideas appreciated. We should be using Bugzilla and its features - keywords, shared searches, tags, custom fields, flags (per component maybe). Michael Meeks-2 wrote One thing I'd like to do is make a developers' portal - we can use as a homepage, with easy-to-use boxes to lookup bug numbers, and interesting reports on the page: that might be rather a good way of advertising the latest problems :-) There is one already - Bugzilla. I think devs should be teached how to use Bugzilla more. It is a monster at first sight, but it can be your best pet after a while. Creating multiple resources, like devs portals, special wiki pages etc. won't help. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4001184.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: minutes of ESC call ...
Noel Grandin wrote - zero tolerance policy for regression issues during development - zero tolerance policy for crash issues during development People who advocate zero tolerance for such things are welcome to provide the time and financial resources necessary to achieve this. Hi. Or maybe change in the base code workflow is needed? 1. design the change 2. find out which modules are affected 3. plan testing 4. code 5. prepare unit tests 6. careful code review (not just OKeying) 7. commit in the unstable branch 8. QA confirm 9. commit in the stable branch I think many bugs introduced are an effect of omitting one (or more) steps from that list by the developer. Using best coding practices always would help a lot. Maybe gerrit will help to achieve this in some way... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/minutes-of-ESC-call-tp4000217p4001027.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: minutes of ESC call ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote On the other hand giving all developers the idea that testing / bug fixing can be endlessly deferred since we'll never release - is a really poor plan too; one aspect of that is that it's not fair on the people that work diligently to test and fix things so we can release at a given time. Hi. Sure, nobody want to repeat 10 OpenOffice 3.3.0 RCs nonsense... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/minutes-of-ESC-call-tp4000217p4001028.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Michael Meeks-2 wrote The reason I graph regressions each week is to try to add focus there; if you can think of another more encouraging way - that'd be appreciated. Hi. Unfortunately those graphs are discouraging in many ways. Especially if one thinks about upgrading LO... Michael Meeks-2 wrote We (the ESC) made a strategic decision to take some regressions there - in order to have much greater sharing of the filter code, such that we have less code, and hence our bug fixes have more impact across all Microsoft import and export filters. Does QA OKeyed this decision? What QA actions were taken before such move? Regression tests prepared? Any tests in general? Manual tests? Michael Meeks-2 wrote There is testing before committing. Tests as regression tests or tests as is it green on tinderbox or it builds on commiter's computer? Michael Meeks-2 wrote One strategic thing we -badly- need is the ability to get stack traces with full symbols out of QA. With that information we can double or better the productivity of bug fixing - without it we are half-blind. I am starting to doubt that it helps. I recently delivered Windows bt to most crash bugs I could find. Prepared wiki page about it. Asked for review of that page. Silence. Few of the bugs were fixed, without any comment if my bt was useful. Will keep this work, but I don't see that bugs with bts are fixed quicker. Michael Meeks-2 wrote Fridrich has been working on getting stack traces / symbol servers setup for Windows for the last several months; he is currently on vacation - no doubt he'll give an update on that when he gets back. It is an enduring frustration to me to be missing that piece. I think I put few cents for this myself on ML and trying to gather nice resources in bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50350. Someone is working on it? Great. It is still UNCONFIRMED... Michael Meeks-2 wrote It's really not clear to me what you're looking for: surely you're not asking for the whole project to stop working on features, and focus exclusively on bugs for a year ;-) that seems an unrealistic expectation to me - we have to move forward as well as fix our huge legacy of bugs, as well as the new bugs we create. I would be happy if I achieve the change in base workflow - new feature in the codebase? Splendid! But unit tests, testcases and manual testing done before commiting. QA OKeyed the feature? Then you can commit. Focusing exclusively on bugs in one of next release (be it 3.7 or 3.8) would be a great idea, as please remember - a feature is a no go, when there are still 123bugs (123bugs as one, two, three actions needed to get LO crash). Also, if I understand correctly, from 3.7 there will be a possibility to introduce working patches from a sister project. It would be great to bury the hatchet and improve both kids at once. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4001009.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] top #n bugs tracking ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote So - I like the idea of highlighting a small set of the most critical bugs each-week - say five; and having them linked in the ESC minutes with a small write-up. Of course that would need to be generated by QA. The bit that is unworkable in the above is the problem of starting QA in earnest only at RC1 :-) That is is -way- too late. We have to be doing QA on master, Betas etc. [...] Why is RC1 -way- too late ? The time it takes to get a fix made, tested, reviewed and included into the next RC is sufficiently long that being certain that bugs fixed in RC1 are truly fixed without knock-on regressions by the time we hit RC3 is already not optimal. Hi. In my proposal I was thinking about maintenance releases only. Constant QA on master, Betas I am taking for granted. So, proposed workflow would be like this (based on 3.6.1 and 3.6.2): 3.6.1 release at RC1 Week 33, Aug 13 - Aug 19, 2012 - start of nominations of bugs, which should be fixed in 3.6.2 at RC2 Week 34, Aug 20 - Aug 26, 2012 - list ready, reviewed by QA, picked minimum number of bugs - maybe goal of 5-10 bugs per release will be achievable? interested devs can assign the bugs to themselves 3.6.2 release Hard code freeze branch libreoffice-3-6-2 Week 38, Sep 17 - Sep 23, 2012 - bugs from nomination list VERIFIED FIXED at RC1 Week 38, Sep 17 - Sep 23, 2012 - list empty or number of bugs minimum goal - nomination is started This is of course apart from all other bug fixing and QA activity. Details to be discussed. Michael Meeks-2 wrote On the other hand, getting some top #5 bugs chewed over at the ESC call each week from Beta0 onwards sounds like it would be a worthwhile thing to do. Of course, there is no guarantee they get fixed and this data should already existing in the MAB tracker for the next release - but it might be helpful to get wider exposure. Would be happy to see that going on... Please remember that old bugs are mostly in the master anyway. Michael Meeks-2 wrote Are you volunteering to write that ? if so, the ESC agenda goes out tomorrow ;-) I know that there is propose=do it scheme on this ML and it is rude to have excuses but at the moment I want to dedicate myself to bugs triage... Backlog it this area is enormous. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4001017.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Jochen wrote We need a strategy with a positive, encouraging motto for the developers. Hi. Strategy is simple - the time has come to manage bugs better. I could be mistaken, it is still difficult to me to gather informations from all LO resources, but I think that today some QA people are CCing experts asking for a bug fix. I am in doubt that this works. Some kind of Bugfix campaign has to start. Mottos? I am not a marketing expert nor a good gfx artist to prepare posters, but we could use some catchy slogans on wiki pages or mailing to get devs more involved in fixing them. As probably you noticed, I mention Mozilla very, very often in my postings. Well, they have good ideas. Make awful mistakes and have their problems (recent Firefox and Flash situation) but are IMHO better organized and have a big bunch of tooling. Yes, I am aware that Mozilla have their QA full time employees, but dedicated volunteers are not unique. At MozCamp Europe 2011 held in Berlin a campaign for Firefox Mobile testers was present all around the venue (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Testdrivers_Program). Posters (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann/6375704453/), stickers were everywhere. I think that LO conference in Berlin is a good opportunity to have Bug squashing draft (this include devs and QA). Examples? I paraphrased few well known slogans to sell this idea (posters, stickers, t-shirts?): Bugs - everyone loses. Help to fix them. Volunteers wanted! Call 999-FIX-BUGS now! Became The king of bugfixing! The bugfixer 14 - come to the sourcecode soon! 100% certified bugfixer We find bugs We fix bugs If you want to impress someone, show him your bugfix list Fix bugs, live better! For the men in charge of bugfixing Bugfixing. I'm lovin it. (R) Bugfixing. Just do it (R) Bugfixing. F* good and tasty! Bugfixing. Does she? Bugfixing. Does he? Bugfixing. Are you? I am with bugfixer I fix, 'cause I can Fix it your way! Reach out and fix something. Find it. Assign it. Fix it. Keep going and going and going... I'm in Resolved Fixed Team. Have you fixed your bug today? Are you Resolved Fixed? Call for bugs (CFB). I think that CFB should be introduced in the release schedule (example http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.6). When to do it and how is another matter. I think that when RC1 is released a CFB should be started and bugfixing planned when RC2 is released (2 weeks are enough?). Bugs should be nominated by QA from ESC stats - regressions and MAB list. Hard code freeze is in next 4 weeks, so the question is - how many bugs can be fixed in 4 weeks? Please remember that today we are talking about 70 MABs and 170 regressions. Branch is in 6 months cycle. So, 10 bugs a week will be enough.. not. Please remember that we still have 2500 bugs to triage. Some minimum should be set by ESC as a goal. Even the open source community have to be managed. To motivate volunteers TDF could join (surprise surprise) Mozilla initiative of Open Badges system (http://www.openbadges.org/en-US/ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges/About http://planet.openbadges.org/). Some LibreOffice badges could be developed, like: - certified LibreOffice user - c. LO developer (builder, gerriter) - c. LO supporter (educator, implementer, translator, templates) - c. QA member (tester, triager, test wrtiter, researcher, bibisecter, moztraper) This can help to build active community and make people proud. Requirements for above should be set. (http://ask.libreoffice.org have their badges - does it work?) All in all the backlog in bugs, regressions and crashers need urgent attention and detailed plan how to get things done. The sooner, the better. When bugs/regressions/crasher situation will be under control, QA could let the devs to rewrite everything. Of course only when testplans, automation and proper code testing procedures are implemented. But that is another matter which should be discussed. Best regards. P.S. Other issues to discuss: - central crash report data system - enable build in crash reporter - detect hot issues - http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/FindTheExpert - experts involvement in CFB - does releasing branch starter with known dataloss regressions (already fixed!) makes sense? - 4 weeks cycle - not too often for proper testing, bug fixing? - beta, rc, master users (numbers, reports) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000667.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:
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Jochen wrote IMHO has bfo some right. But: 1) bankruptcy of this system is a little bit exaggerated. Hi! Not at all. After reviewing 400 bugs (and counting) I could double 3.5MAB numbers in an instant. The main problem is that MAB is a battlefield for users without QA control and devs IMHO are in other parts of the LO world (and nobody, I say nobody will ever browse 300 comments bug). Just see 3.5MAB stats in ESC minutes - open bugs vs fixed ratio is unfortunately more or less constant. The same with regressions. 67 in Writer? 177 in whole package? Regressions! Bugs that irritate users most, because they want to use advertised nice new features but they are stuck with old version for good. Does the project do not respect users? One can see it that way... And all that with double/triple code reviews. A joke! Other problem is bugs backlog. 1000 of UNCONFIRMED or NEEDINFO, 2500 NEW bugs! With a rate of ~6 bugs closed daily it is not very encouraging (please remember that some of them are WORKSFORME, INVALID or DUPLICATE bugs). QA should push red button instantly. Luckily there are people who want to triage bugs (including myself). But with those numbers it is a daunting task. Do not forget that after triage we need a lot of people who want to fix them. And to get things worse we are talking here about bugs.freedesktop.org only! There are other Bugzillas where LO bugs are reported (including AOO sister code). Herculean effort is needed at once to get this straight. As you can see there are major topics to discuss urgently. I hope together we can change this situation. And yes, bugs.freedesktop.org Product:LibreOffice is in a state of bankruptcy... Numbers do not lie (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/reports.cgi?product=LibreOfficedatasets=UNCONFIRMEDdatasets=NEWdatasets=NEEDINFO). Jochen wrote 2) Whinging and grouching will not help We need a strategy with a positive, encouraging motto for the developers. Well, somebody has to start it. I observe this project for few months and I think, that QA voice is weak. I am perplexed reading All good, No problems in ESC QA section and then read regression or MAB stats. Also while triaging bugs, see a few 123crash bugs a week or such discoveries as bug 47466. I will whinge and grouch even more - LO is most crashy application I ever touched in my life. This has to change. QA has to step in. No more changing of splash screens (a lot of problems with that and still bottom text is cutted) or rewriting filters just to introduce 12 regressions. It has to stop. Really. Now. Crashkill, regressionkill, testing before commiting, better code reviews. Insist that code rewrite planned for 4.0 is absurd, when there are dozens of instant crashes in the codebase. Unfortunately devs do not like to fix bugs. That is why I think a strategy should be to nominate bugs for every maintenance release. 10 bugs per release? Ask the people - please, fix those bugs first and then innovate. I can't see that on daily basis, only when some disaster happens like recent regressions or problems with Windows builds or a real real real hard blocker. On the other way - paid support as a first answer for bug fixing is a deadend. Corporate users can count their assets. They are tempted by free software and they expect it just works (interoperates with their customers). When they hear, that paid support is suggested, they start to count very fast. What is better - pay every year 10/50/100$ per user for a support or buy (or lease) other software and it just works with everyone/everything? Or maybe they do not need a software at all with cloud computing here, there and everywhere? It is very tricky situation for software in general... That is all for today. Hope to see some ideas in ESC minutes some day and more QA volunteers. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000474.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Rainer Bielefeld-2 wrote For some of these bugs simply the Bug description still is not satisfying so that I can understand developers that they pick bugs where they can start fixing with out much additional preliminary research. Hi! Sometimes I am not even sure that devs use Bugzilla and read comments... Anyway they can use NEEDINFO status with a short comment and skip the bug or maybe qawanted keyword for such research request should be introduced. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000483.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote I dont think discussing this on a mailing list will help us find the silver bullet to the problems you describe. However, you are most invited to just us on the next QA Call on August, 23rd 2012 1400UTC, discussing these topics on the phone is usually a lot more constructive. Hi. Thanks. I am not available in the working hours and really prefer text than voice. Everyone can comment and brainstorm here. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000495.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements
Timur_LOL wrote It is clear that at the beginning bugs list should contain only bugs which are *new* in LibreOffice 3.6, but at some time, while some fixes from MAB 3.5 are integrated in the code, there is a decision on what to do with the remaining unfixed bugs from a branch (3.5). Hi. It is not a big surprise that 3.5MAB has already 3.4MAB bugs imported. Now, most of them will become 3.6MAB, which is ridiculous. Personally I would declare bankruptcy of this system. It is a road to nowhere. I'd propose Nominate bug system. As branch will have 6 maintenance releases maybe a bug should have Target version field, where QA would like to see a fix. I know that LO development is Take your bugFix itCommit system, but NominateTakeFixCommit attitude would be a gain. What good are new features, where people are stuck with 3.4.x version because of regressions introduced in constant rewrite of filters without proper testing? Already there are discussions about LO 4.0 with incompatible changes. With all due respect this is insane. I would like to see 3.8 crashkill and 3.9 regressionkill versions before rewriting code in 4.0 (with strict unit tests and regression testing policies). I know that developers do not like to fix bugs (bring), but QA should encourage to fix old problems, even at the cost of new features (new features are cool!!!). Most annoying bugs: - Report wizard Finish button does nothing - Exporting files with hyperlinks in footnotes/endnotes or even a table of content to DOCX was generating corrupted files that other office suites weren't able to open - Exporting (saving) spreadsheet file with cell comments to XLS/XLSX will lose comments Well, because of that (and 3.5MAB) 3.6 is a no go for many, in fact 3.5 in no go for some already. Interesting read is an article about LO adoption in France (https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/mimo-working-group-french-ministries-certify-libreoffice-release-0) where MIMO group recommends LibreOffice in 3.3.4 version until September 2012! I am curious which version will be recommended afterwards. They are two branches behind already. Maybe their testing procedures would be good test plans for LO testing in general? Does TDF cooperates with them about it? Their deployment is mentioned in every marketing note recently... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000297.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote * QA update (Rainer) + new bug report page - with search for duplicates thanks to Tollef Hi. Nice that Potential Duplicates has been enabled, the same for usernames autocomplete. Whining could be enabled also. Maybe bugs.freedesktop.org administrators are going toward Bugzilla 4.2. Hope so... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-minutes-of-ESC-call-tp3999026p3999075.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Freedesktop down ??
Florian Reisinger wrote Somehow it seems to me that Bugzilla is down (With some circumstances only...) http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/862641-81201261840PM Hi. Seems it is updated to 4.0.7 now and blazing fast atm... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Freedesktop-down-tp3998811p3998817.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: Static src analysis of LibreOffice
John Smith wrote
I have been playing around with the llvm/clang static source code
analyzer (http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html) for a while now, and
thought it might be fun and beneficial to run the analyzer on the
libreoffice ('master') source code. For those interested the results
can be found here :
http://lbalbalba.x90x.net/clang-analyzer/libreoffice/
Hi!
This is a very interesting report to read. Maybe after you are done with
this you will be interested in playing with gcov/lcov - code coverage report
tool? Thread with some resources is here:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901p3998038.html
and bug report here: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38840.
Setting up such reports would be great for improving the LO package for
sure.
Have fun!
Best regards.
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Static-src-analysis-of-LibreOffice-tp3998343p3998486.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: LibreOffice code coverage
julien2412 wrote There's a tracker about coverage, see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38840 For the moment, no one seemed to be on it (perhaps I'm wrong). Hi. What a discovery! I have found some scripts already in the codebase http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/sal/qa/helper/gcov/. Maybe someone with Linux build environment could check that out and try to generate some stats. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901p3998038.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice code coverage
julien2412 wrote There's a tracker about coverage, see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38840 For the moment, no one seemed to be on it (perhaps I'm wrong). Hi. What a discovery! I have found some scripts already in the codebase http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/sal/qa/helper/gcov/. Maybe someone with Linux build environment could check that out and try to generate some stats. Best regards. ___ If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901p3998038.html To unsubscribe from LibreOffice code coverage, visit http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=3994901code=bGlicmVvZmZpY2UtcWFAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnfDM5OTQ5MDF8LTE0NjUxOTE3MDY=___ 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 of LibreOffice and Microsoft Office 2013
Hi. Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2013 Preview Evaluation is available for download as MSI installer at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/evalcenter/hh973391.aspx?wt.mc_id=TEC_114_1_5 (link at the bottom of the page). Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows Server 2012 required. Both 32bit and 64bit versions are available. It is good opportunity to know what new features will be available in this package and test interoperability with LibreOffice. Product page is available at http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/en. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Interoperability-of-LibreOffice-and-Microsoft-Office-2013-tp3996056.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] Interoperability of LibreOffice and Microsoft Office 2013
Hi. Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2013 Preview Evaluation is available for download as MSI installer at http://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/evalcenter/hh973391.aspx?wt.mc_id=TEC_114_1_5 (link at the bottom of the page). Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows Server 2012 required. Both 32bit and 64bit versions are available. It is good opportunity to know what new features will be available in this package and test interoperability with LibreOffice. Product page is available at http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/en. Best regards. __ If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Interoperability-of-LibreOffice-and-Microsoft-Office-2013-tp3996056.html This email was sent by bfo (via Nabble) To receive all replies by email, subscribe to this discussion: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=subscribe_by_codenode=3996056code=bGlicmVvZmZpY2UtcWFAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnfDM5OTYwNTZ8LTE0NjUxOTE3MDY=___ 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 code coverage
Hi. Today I stumbled upon Thunderbird code coverage report (http://people.mozilla.org/~jcranmer2/c-ccov/). Did anyone make such report for LibreOffice codebase? Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Gerrit: bug db integration
David Ostrovsky wrote just for the record: we turned on gerrit's bug-db-integration machinery Hi. I accidentally hovered mouse pointer over fdo#x in some commit today and was surprised that it is linked. Cool that it is enabled. Is it possible to underline it at all times and/or change the color to darker to make it more obvious link element? For me the color used is not much different than text around... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Gerrit-bug-db-integration-tp3994988p3994995.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice-qa] LibreOffice code coverage
Hi. Today I stumbled upon Thunderbird code coverage report (http://people.mozilla.org/~jcranmer2/c-ccov/). Did anyone make such report for LibreOffice codebase? Best regards. __ If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice-code-coverage-tp3994901.html This email was sent by bfo (via Nabble) To receive all replies by email, subscribe to this discussion: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=subscribe_by_codenode=3994901code=bGlicmVvZmZpY2UtcWFAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnfDM5OTQ5MDF8LTE0NjUxOTE3MDY=___ 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 transfer from AOOo Bugzilla to LibO Bugzilla
Hi. In regards to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51352#c3 I think that imported bugs which are in RESOLVED FIXED state should get some kind of notification by a triagger. LO devs, with the current backlog, should not waste time for bugs, which are already fixed in the other codebase. According to http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Including-a-patch-from-AOO-tp3992463p3992646.html such import will be possible in near future, so bugs indicated by such notification could be proceed ASAP (possibly as EasyHack or Import Day). Query based on See also field is no good, as there are many bugs reported that are not fixed in AOO. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Bug-transfer-from-AOOo-Bugzilla-to-LibO-Bugzilla-tp3986722p3992866.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: Including a patch from AOO...
Hi. There are bug reports on bugs.freedesktop.org imported from AOO which are in RESOLVED FIXED state there. Patches are commited to AOO codebase for some of them. LO devs should reinvent the wheel to fix a fixed issues (just like this thread is all about)? This can impact improving LO quality. Any comments on that? Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Including-a-patch-from-AOO-tp3992463p3992579.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Cobra - WinLDTP Automation
Michael Stahl-2 wrote Linux version is LDTP, Windows version is Cobra and Mac version is PyATOM (Work in progress). can all of these execute the same tests? surely writing tests 3 times is not the way to go. With LDTP and WinLDTP, the script API part will be the same. The only places where the script writer has to update things would be like - when the widget types between both the platforms are different or the UI object label is different More informations: news article - http://news.efytimes.com/e1/82073/VMWare-Open-Sources--Windows-Version-Of-Linux-Desktop-Testing-Project developer's blog - http://nagappanal.blogspot.com/ i wonder what AOO uses for UI testing; perhaps IBM has some internal thing for that. I have found the following resources: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/release-qa-plan.html http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance http://www.mail-archive.com/ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg20994.html the smoketest (as well as many other automated tests) can be run during the build simply by calling make check, and i would hope that our release builds are built that way. Are results of such tests available anywhere? - full regression test has to be done before every major release - basic regression test should be done also before every bug fix release What is the status of those? Are they executed before each release? Any dashboards available? i wonder what regression test means here? manual tests, or does it refer to testtool? I got it from this article: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Testing/Regression_Tests -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cobra-WinLDTP-Automation-tp3992246p3992538.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/
[Libreoffice-qa] Cobra - WinLDTP Automation
Hi. I stumbled upon Cobra – WinLDTP, Windows version of Linux Desktop Testing Project open sourced by VMWare recently. Using this tool, the GUI functionality of an application can be tested in Windows XP SP3, Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8 development release. Libre/OpenOffice is mentioned. Did anybody used LDTP in the past to perform functional, regression testing? More info at http://ldtp.freedesktop.org/wiki. Best regards. P.S. There are traces of automation at wiki.documentfoundation.org: - smoketest has to be done before any beta or rc build is announced - full regression test has to be done before every major release - basic regression test should be done also before every bug fix release What is the status of those? Are they executed before each release? Any dashboards available? -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Cobra-WinLDTP-Automation-tp3992246.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: Cleaning bug list
Petr Mladek wrote I'd change the workflow a little bit by putting the obvious things at the top: - feature requests aka wishlist I do not have any strong opinion for this. I think that it is is good to be able to discuss features, so enhancement bugs in bugzilla might be usable. - add target milestone if a feature is planned already This must be done by developer, anyway :-) Well, to be clear, I see all this more like how to triage guide, that is why I started with enhancements. Target milestone can be set by QA member if feature is available. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33773#c11 for instance. - bugs reported against not supported branches - exclude those at reporting level by disabling old versions in select fields; but what to do when they appear anyway - mark them as INVALID at triaging? ask the reporter to check in new version? Any comments? We need to be more careful here. The current rule is to do NOT modify the version picker if you reproduce the problem with newer version. It is because it is very valuable to know how the bug is old. It helps developers to locate it. So, maybe, we should do it the other way and set the field to the oldest version where it was found. I was thinking about New bug reports, which should be reported for supported branches only (proposed in https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51070). Unfortunately it depends on https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50198. - is it Most Frequently Reported - then just dupe it What do you mean by Most Frequently Reported? Is it at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/duplicates.cgi for LibreOffice product. Then it can be handled very quickly, but I see that searching for dupes is already listed on http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage I would personally enable voting as well but some other people thing that it is not objective. Unfortunately I discovered https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39739. WONTFIXed by Mr Bielefeld who authored http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Vote_for_Enhancement, where it begins with [...] Bugzilla bug tracking system does not support Votes for requests as it is available for OpenOffice.org. Here you find an experimental Voting (or better: statistical online survey), currently with only very few rules and only for Enhancement requests. I am perplexed. How manual wiki voting, adding special keywords to bugs can be better than automated, build-in, out of the box, customizable voting within Bugzilla? Strange. I know that voting is not a recipe to find best bugs to fix/features to implement, but I think that giving an ability to vote (even only for QA team members or LO developers) would help going forward. I do vote for features in other Bugzillas myself. You are right, regression are bad and we need to fix them with high priority. On the other hand, you still need to compare them with other reported bugs and decide what is more annoying for the daily work. We could not blindly set the highest priority for a tiny functional problem just because it is a regression. As someone said, you could view almost any bug as regression, so we need to prioritize them as well. I would keep the current approach. Add regression into Whiteboard and set one level higher priority that you would set for non-regression. I disagree. Many people just won't upgrade because of them. Fast query shows 180 opened bugs with regression keyword. Very worrying... It actually helps to prioritize bugs as well. If reporter is not willing to provide more information, the problem is probably not that important for him. Disagree, as providing proper bt is complicated. Also note that some crashers are reproducible only in very strange circumstances. Also some scenarios are very hard to prepare. We just need help from reporters in these cases. Sure, but IMHO only if bug is not reproducible. If someone change the priority a wrong way, I would ask them not to do it, explain that the level is not that important, and change it back. If they change it once again, I would leave it as is. Developers would filter it themselves :-) I found https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49168. IMHO instead of flooding the Bugzilla, one can just disable it. I think that it is not worth spending resources on migrating bugs to a single bugzilla. IMHO, it is better to spend time on fixing other bugs, improving the functionality, testing, ... Already some bugs are migrated (from Symphony for instance). Some of them are fixed already. I just can't imagine proper bug management in a project, when you have to follow many bugtrackers. The ideal process is described at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Initial_state Of course, developers are just humans, sometimes quite overloaded and they do not follow the process. [...] developers to close bugs by asking about the state. I wonder, how often do you see
Re: What is bibisect? And what is it doing in my office?
Jan Holesovsky wrote Hi, On 2012-06-16 at 02:22 -0700, bfo wrote: Not at all - it is even possible to generate a zipped installation, that would be just unpacked, and checked into git; ie. nothing really hard to do. But nobody has done that yet - are you interested? If yes: The best would be to modify the tinbuild2 to be able also to commit the installation to a git repository, and push it to some repository. [...] The repository would have to be setup (on the server) to repack after every push; but that is just a trivial hook. [..] You probably want to hack somewhere here: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/buildbot/tree/bin/tinbuild_phases.sh#n85 (making it part of the do_push() function). Hi. Thanks for the info, its good for search engines out there. Starred this thread already... If anyone can add other useful informations - please do comment. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/What-is-bibisect-And-what-is-it-doing-in-my-office-tp3572953p3991323.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: Cleaning bug list
Joel Madero-2 wrote Version 2, changed orientation and tried to take comments into account. Let me know what you all think. Hi. This is a very nice workflow, but I have some questions: - how you define Bug prevent users from making professional quality work? Interoperability issues are a big obstacle. If this package is supposed to read/write MSOffice files, then every new bug in this area should have high priority by default. I have reported two annoying: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47138 47138 and https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49102 49102 . Are those prevent users from making professional quality work enough? Home users can live with a workaround, but it is impossible to expect that xx(x) users will do it xx times a day. Everyday. That is not professional (even worse - it is very unprofessional for those users migrated from MSO, where it just worked). I'd change the workflow a little bit by putting the obvious things at the top: - feature requests aka wishlist - add target milestone if a feature is planned already - bugs reported against not supported branches - exclude those at reporting level by disabling old versions in select fields; but what to do when they appear anyway - mark them as INVALID at triaging? ask the reporter to check in new version? Any comments? - is it Most Frequently Reported - then just dupe it and now, if a bug is still there, triage it by the proposed workflow. - how you define most and many - I reported those two bugs on behalf of ~xx people - is my bug better than other reports? Should this be controlled by number of dupes? At what levels? Maybe enabling voting feature of Bugzilla would help here... - regressions - this is a major problem and I think it deserves its own place in the workflow. It is not a big problem for home users to switch the version back and forth. But when we are talking in terms of bigger deployment, when you have xx computers (and growing) it becomes a real blocker sometimes. What good are new and fixed versions for, where there is a regression which disqualifies the software for daily use? That is a big problem. - backtraces - not all people can do proper backtrace, especially on Windows, so maybe while triaging crash bugs one could ask for one a QA member? BTW: Having own dev build of LO 3.5.4.2 I can be QA contact for missing bt for all Windows crash bugs (except Base) on that branch. - permissions - seems like every user has canconfirm (Can confirm a bug) and editbugs (Can edit all aspects of any bug). Did you think about changing that, so one could not interfere with QA actions or vandalize the bug reports? Bugs triaged. But those are only b.f.o. bugs. Checking release info for 3.5.5.1 I can see such acronyms like bnc, i, rhbz and there are bugs reported on b.f.o. coming from aoo (where they may be fixed already). Not mentioning ubuntu, gentoo, opensuse and other bugtrackers. This is a very serious problem, because not all bugs are in one place. Any comments about that? Does the developers have their workflow in Bugzilla? I compared few commits (libreoffice/core libreoffice-3-5-5) with b.f.o reports: - 50603 - not assigned, UNCONFIRMEDRESOLVED FIXED - 43967 - assigned, UNCONFIRMEDNEWRESOLVED FIXEDREOPENEDASSIGNEDRESOLVED FIXED - 48601 - not assigned, UNCONFIRMEDNEW - 50988 - assigned, UNCONFIRMEDASSIGNEDRESOLVED FIXED - 43249 - assigned, UNCONFIRMEDNEWRESOLVED FIXED So, not bad but if there is more not assigned RESOLVED FIXED or NEW bugs with commits in the repo, then I see a problem here. QA should know what is happening with the bugs without the need to follow the comments. How does it look for commits? Also I see a lot of commits without bug report number in it. What is fixed then? I see it as another problem. I see you do not use QA field in Bugzilla. Why is that? Every component of a product can have its default QA specialist. Then developers responsible for a component quality can get a notice of new bugs instead of news about all of them. Also QA specialist assigned here could be responsible for bibisecting, bt delivery or verifying the bug. By the way - Browsing through dev/qa mailinglist I can see that you prefer those lists than bugs in Bugzilla. For instance - are those action items from ESC or QA meetings reported as bugs in Bugzilla? b.f.o is not used project wide or am I missing something? Do you VERIFY bugs? I see just 62 bugs as VERIFIED FIXED. I do not see such section in Getting Involved. Surely there are users willing to participate this way. I see you do not use flags and prefer Whiteboard. Why is that? Maybe a better idea than a MAB nightmare (IMHO meta bugs with 300 comments are useless) would be a release tracking flag, where QA would like to see a fix. Mozilla projects use them a lot for instance... Well, sorry for such a pack of off-topic questions, but I'd like to understand QA in this project better. Best regards. -- View this message in context:
Re: What is bibisect? And what is it doing in my office?
The bibisect is only possible for Bugs which are reproducible under Linux, if Linux has already been excluded (maybe bug history or comments will contain required information) bibisecting will not be possible. But of course, you can use bibisect to find out whether the bug is reproducible under Linux. Hi. What is needed to prepare a Windows version? There are Windows tinderboxes with daily builds of LO already (with new builds made twice a day even). Repacking them as ready to go Windows installation by using PortableApps technology would allow to do bibisecting on Windows without a hassle (if I understand correctly it is a manual run exe-check exe-mark source process). Am I missing something? Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/What-is-bibisect-And-what-is-it-doing-in-my-office-tp3572953p3990429.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
Petr Mladek wrote Create the wiki pages about getting the windows backtrace. Hi. Draft is available at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/How_to_get_a_backtrace_with_WinDbg. LO Windows developers are asked to comment: - what debug output do they actually need - which additional WinDbg commands should be used (if any) - is mini dump generationanalyse procedure presented there useful (if not - how to do it the right way) Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-3-5-3rc1-win32-debug-package-tp3984895p3989964.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
Petr Mladek wrote If you prepare the pages and template and if it is easy to add new week, Michael might do it himself in the future. Firefox team is using CreateBox Wiki Extension for minutes - check their wiki page at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform#Meetings Yes, any help is really appreciated. If you feel like, please propose some prioritization. From my users perspective the proposal is simple: 1. crashers 2. dataloss 3. regressions 4. something do not work as expected bugs 5. enhancements BTW: With time scheduled release cycle (monthly in your case) IMHO it is difficult to triage bugs as blockers or critical anyway. I do not know if you are prepared to do chemspills, emergency releases or stop the release channel if things go wrong big time... Maybe, but changing to NEW is quite complicated in your workflow, so mostly I leave them as UNCONFIRMED. Heh, what is complicated about it? Is the documentation unclear? IMHO, if you make sure that e bug is reproducible with the given information, you could move it to the state NEW. I thought so, but according to http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage there are three bold ANDs before you can change a status to NEW. Further more, an exclamation mark at the end of that paragraph (and the whole scary sentence before it) discouraged me to change anything in the Status field at all. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-3-5-3rc1-win32-debug-package-tp3984895p3988078.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] crasher bugs and most annoying bugs generated by automation [was: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...]
Bjoern Michaelsen wrote Crash counter (search for libreoffice-core): https://errors.ubuntu.com/ Open LibreOffice crasher bugs by most affected users: Open LibreOffice crasher bugs by bug heat: This s very cool. Question - why I have mostly page not find errors when I click in the Bugs report column for libreoffice-core? Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-crasher-bugs-and-most-annoying-bugs-generated-by-automation-was-3-5-3rc1-win32-debug--tp3987469p3988080.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: About fdo#47044 crashed when accessing Proxy etc
julien2412 wrote Hello, Quite recently, an interesting bt has been published by bfoman about this bug (see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=62055) , here are the top lines : Hi. I just wanted to add, that if there is more I can do to debug it - I will do it (like some WinDbg magic commands as per developers' suggestions). I can reproduce at will in Windows 7 (Windows XP is not affected as I can tell atm). This is a blocker in my organization, as this is triggered always when users copy'n'paste from Intranet sites into Writer (instant crash) - and they do it quite frequently. And as per bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49903 seems this is involved in other areas when links are processed. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/About-fdo-47044-crashed-when-accessing-Proxy-etc-tp3986891p3987450.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: About fdo#47044 crashed when accessing Proxy etc
julien2412 wrote Quite recently, an interesting bt has been published by bfoman about this bug (see https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=62055) , here are the top lines : Also check updated bt at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=62322 -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/About-fdo-47044-crashed-when-accessing-Proxy-etc-tp3986891p3987452.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
Michael Meeks-2 wrote On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 11:35 -0700, bfo wrote: I read that you have unused reporting tool in the codebase and plans to bring it back to life. Without it do you know the top crashers? Not really; we rely on human bug filing and QA to bring these to our attention; of course, lots of users simply don't bother to file bugs, but hopefully we get some reports for these. I think it won't do any good in the long term. Enabling reporting tool would give you a chance to get more data without the need to know the bugzilla magic by the users (just opt in to send the reports). It could bring more testers to the project, as now you have to do an own debug build to test LO with proper backtraces (especially on Windows). Then (or I should write Before that) you can think about what to do with the data (and how). Luckily you can use experience of other projects (nice reading at http://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/) or code even and work with dashboards like https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/ or http://brasstacks.mozilla.com/orangefactor for instance. I can see you have quite a few http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org tinderboxes but the question is - how do you use them for QA? Browsing through QA articles I can feel it is more like - download, run, test, report scheme atm. Anyone is welcome to put / link them into whatever wiki page they like :-) if you want it - go for it ! I'm happy to add a link to it at the bottom of my template so it's easy to find in future. Yea... As wiki.d.o can have http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_Meetings TDF BoD meetings or http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Committee_Meetings Membership Committee Meetings I simply do not understand why Engineering Steering Committee Meeting are not there. It is very valuable information about what is going on in the project. http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/RBd/TSC_Call_Minutes RBd 's notes are a good read, but you know... pasting minutes into wiki template do not need another volunteer... Also I am really concerned about your QA priorities. IMHO you should care little more about Windows builds and MS Office filters. Who is the 'you' here ? you are one of us if you're helping out :-) [...] However, getting the best and fastest possible list of and prioritisation of bugs is a crucial task of QA By you I mean QA Team. Reading ESC minutes I do not see general rule of prioritisation of bugs. Is it 1. crashers 2. regressions 3. enhancements or any other scheme? I can't feel it atm. You have MAB meta bugs, but it's more my bug is more buggy than your bug attitude there. Sadly I'm not QA specialist. I just decided to help LO project by confirming as many bugs as I can find in Bugzilla. Hope this will help increase the quality of LO for Windows in any way... Certainly - it's a really good way to help out. Yes, I started doing that. It seems it moved things a little bit in few bugs already. Should I do something more? Maybe, but changing to NEW is quite complicated in your workflow, so mostly I leave them as UNCONFIRMED. Best regards. P.S. Sorry for off-topic. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-3-5-3rc1-win32-debug-package-tp3984895p3987465.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
bfo wrote As I wrote earlier I have pdb symbols and source links in the WinDbg outputs, but I am concerned about missing FAULTING_SOURCE_LINE and FAULTING_SOURCE_CODE sections. I managed to receive outputs with FAULTING_SOURCE_CODE section just as in Jesus screencast. FAULTING_SOURCE_LINE is still missing, but it is not a big problem, as there is marker in the source code section. I'll put it into wiki page soon. Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-3-5-3rc1-win32-debug-package-tp3984895p3986407.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Petr Mladek - pmla...@suse.cz wrote: but I am not sure if my WinDbg output is any good. It is probably less informative without the .pdb files. Anyway, I guess that your are on the right way. As I wrote earlier I have pdb symbols and source links in the WinDbg outputs, but I am concerned about missing FAULTING_SOURCE_LINE and FAULTING_SOURCE_CODE sections. If you are lost, just ask on this mailing list. Please, mention there more details about your system, configure options, and the error message with some context. Please, do it in separate mail, so we do not solve too many problems in this thread :-) Will do as I stuck on those on my way to master... BTW: I am using sources from http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/src/. You might fine some information in the build_info.txt file that is available next to the related daily build. Yes, I checked that, but haven't found why I had errors in my attempts to do the builds. Thanks for digging into it. Well, it is very hard for a newcomer as more informations, settings, parameters and tips you can get from the mailing lists than from wiki articles. Hope to edit those a little bit when I succeed. It is hell of a job to browse a huge number of threads to get this running... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-3-5-3rc1-win32-debug-package-tp3984895p3986052.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Petr Mladek - pmla...@suse.cz wrote: We are already using Litmus and are going to migrate to Moztrap. Though, we are not familiar with the real processes that used in the Mozilla project. Do you have any experience with the Mozilla processes? Are you able to compare it with the current LibreOffice processes that are described at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA ? This is the area where we really need improvements. It would be difficult for me to compare it, as I am not a QA/RelEng specialist, insider nor involved in the process. I think you should just check what they achieved at these sites in terms of workflow, automation and data gathering: https://quality.mozilla.org/ https://wiki.mozilla.org/QA/Desktop_Firefox https://wiki.mozilla.org/Socorro https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/products/Firefox https://tbpl.mozilla.org/ http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/module-ownership.html https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/ http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html https://wiki.mozilla.org/Sheriff_Duty https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseEngineering:Sheriffing http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/regression-policy.html https://wiki.mozilla.org/Inbound_Sheriff_Duty One have to remember that Mozilla have full time QA employees and build those tools for years. They changed release cycle recently and also had some problems (being so experienced). As LibreOffice is complicated project maybe you should implement some more automation and crash data gathering. I read that you have unused reporting tool in the codebase and plans to bring it back to life. Without it do you know the top crashers? Per platform? Per branch? I do not see such information in ESC minutes (btw: could you put them also in the wiki?). Depending just on Bugzilla queries IMHO is not enough. Also I am really concerned about your QA priorities. IMHO you should care little more about Windows builds and MS Office filters. Without those it will be a huge problem to gain users on this platform. Unfortunately Windows support and MS format regressions are little scary. I am not a developer, but Microsoft published the documentation at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecifications/cc816059.aspx. Unfortunately changes in the Microsoft policy about compilers (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/no-cost-desktop-software-development-is-dead-on-windows-8/) can discourage Windows volunteers or developers even more And no - buy support, pay for code, do it yourself or change OS is not the right answer. It would be great if you could join us and discus particular changes on the libreoffice-qa mailing list. Sadly I'm not QA specialist. I just decided to help LO project by confirming as many bugs as I can find in Bugzilla. Hope this will help increase the quality of LO for Windows in any way... Best regards. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Re-3-5-3rc1-win32-debug-package-tp3984895p3986061.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Petr Mladek - pmla...@suse.cz wrote: Please consider. Always you can ask the friendly guys at Mozilla how to set this all up... Thanks for tip. What a discovery! Seems like complete how to: http://zenit.senecac.on.ca/wiki/index.php/Mozilla_Source_and_Symbol_Server Blog postings, bugs on b.m.o, other resources also worth of checking: http://crashopensource.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/starting-the-project-mozilla-source-and-symbol-server/ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385792 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408134 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=419904 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424240 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424817 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=428518 http://web.archive.org/web/20071218162257/http://www.jorgon.freeserve.co.uk/Other/pdb.htm Best regards. P.S. It would be great if ESC could go the Mozilla's path of doing things in QA department. The knowledge base is on Mozilla's wiki. Software is... open sourced and available to download. You should get connected to make LO better. Definitely. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: 3.5.3rc1 win32 / debug package ...
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:13 +0200, Jesús Corrius wrote: In any case, the right way to do it would be to automatically generate all PDBs for each released version, for example in: solver\wntmsci.pro\pdb. Then we put those generated PDBs online at symbols.libreoffice.org. I think first we should have the symbol server for Jesus' debug build. Or he should publish the PDB files along with the installer. Hello. I am Windows user interested in helping confirming UNCONFIRMED and other crash bug reports on b.f.o. Please set up the symbol server and even source server just as Mozilla did. This will help people without strong programming knowledge to just run the WinDbg, download the symbols/source, catch a crasher and fill complete bug reports for Windows platform with source excerpt included. And all that without setting up build environment to generate symbols and source access for WinDbg on their own. Links to Mozilla pages, where all this is well documented: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/How_to_get_a_stacktrace_with_WinDbg https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Using_the_Mozilla_symbol_server https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Using_the_Mozilla_source_server https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Debugging_a_minidump Currently there is only http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_debug article and screencast by Jesús Corrius on YouTube - sadly without step by step wiki article about it. Please consider. Always you can ask the friendly guys at Mozilla how to set this all up... Best regards. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
