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

[Hung Mark]

Hi,

Just  random thought about the discussion. Please ignore me if it didn't
sounds good.

How about "discontinued" instead of "abandoned", with some automatic
message to describe why it is discontinued.

Note that sometimes user just fail and can't find procedure to reproduce on
his own.
For example, document might fail to open or formatted text might change
when saved file reopened.
It needs some kind of profession to describe what have been done.
Sometimes even developers won't be able to reproduce the issue even he or
she see it happen.
So I think it is a good idea to blame any side.


2015-11-10 6:11 GMT+08:00 Tommy :

> Joel Madero wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID
>>>
>>> IMHO the time spent to implement this new
>>> ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless...
>>>
>>> in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user
>>> so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't
>>> provide necessary informations.
>>>
>>
>> To put this in context - this began after several users over the course
>> of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status.
>>
>
>
> I don't understand why those people should feel irate or offended if the
> INVALID state is due to their deficiency to provide a valide testcase or
> answers to legitimate QA questions...
>
> most of the time you got an INVALID tag after 7 months of inactivity...
> so, again, no reason to blame QA if you can't answer questions after 7
> months
>
> I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED
>> will make
>> them feel better, that's fine.
>>
>
>
> anyway, whatever you decide is ok for me.
> but I think we are paying too much attention to users who are not giving a
> valualble contribution to Bugzilla and LibO in general
>
>
> I really don't care much about feelings of bad bug submitters.
> probably most of them would deserve a PEBKAC status :-)
>
>
> This will mostly be used by the automatic
>> pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this
>> new status.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Joel
>>
>
> bye, Tommy
>
>
> ___
> LibreOffice mailing list
> libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>



-- 
Mark Hung
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[David Tardon]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:33:47AM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:00:16AM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > Hi Wols,
> > 
> > On Wednesday, 2015-11-11 19:09:39 +, Wols Lists wrote:
> > 
> > > It's getting more wordy but INSUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE is a bit more
> > > neutral.
> > 
> > 
> > insufficient data can not be available
> > 
> 
> Nitpick, but true none the less: if this is really what you guys want to do, 
> it
> should be DATA AVAILABLE INSUFFICIENT instead -- or DATA PROVIDED 
> INSUFFICIENT.

And how exactly this differs from plain "INSUFFICIENT DATA"? Are there
any other data relevant to the bug than those PROVIDED by the reporter /
triagers (i.e., AVAILABLE in the bug)?

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

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

[Eike Rathke]

Hi Wols,

On Wednesday, 2015-11-11 19:09:39 +, Wols Lists wrote:

> It's getting more wordy but INSUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE is a bit more
> neutral.


insufficient data can not be available


scnr ;-)

  Eike

-- 
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
GPG key "ID" 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Better use 64-bit 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A here is why: https://evil32.com/
Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:00:16AM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Wols,
> 
> On Wednesday, 2015-11-11 19:09:39 +, Wols Lists wrote:
> 
> > It's getting more wordy but INSUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE is a bit more
> > neutral.
> 
> 
> insufficient data can not be available
> 

Nitpick, but true none the less: if this is really what you guys want to do, it
should be DATA AVAILABLE INSUFFICIENT instead -- or DATA PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT.

Best,

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

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

[Wols Lists]

On 09/11/15 19:33, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hu? No. What I meant is have INSUFFICIENTDATA on the same level as
> WORKSFORME and INVALID, a status attribute, not a status. So if a bug
> was in status NEEDINFO for some time and info wasn't provided it can be
> set to RESOLVED INSUFFICIENTDATA and then closed (we may even think of
> skipping RESOLVED and directly go to CLOSED instead, as it is no
> resolution, just closing a bug).

It's getting more wordy but INSUFFICIENT DATA AVAILABLE is a bit more
neutral. So if it went from NEEDINFO to CLOSED INSUFFICIENT DATA
AVAILABLE, it shouldn't (famous last words) upset anybody unless they're
determined to get upset.

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

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

[Michael Stahl]

On 09.11.2015 23:11, Tommy wrote:
> Joel Madero wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID
>>>
>>> IMHO the time spent to implement this new
>>> ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless...
>>>
>>> in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user
>>> so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't
>>> provide necessary informations.
>>
>> To put this in context - this began after several users over the course
>> of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status.
> 
> 
> I don't understand why those people should feel irate or offended if the 
> INVALID state is due to their deficiency to provide a valide testcase or 
> answers to legitimate QA questions...

i think it's just poor usability of bugzilla.  the word INVALID sort of
makes it sound like it should never have been filed in the first place
and it's all the reporter's fault, while e.g. INSUFFICIENT_DATA is
somewhat weaker in assigning blame to the reporter - it may be there's a
valid bug, but we just don't have enough data to fix anything.


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

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

[Hung Mark]

Hi,

Just  random thought about the discussion. Please ignore me if it didn't
sounds good.

How about "discontinued" instead of "abandoned", with some automatic
message to describe why it is discontinued.

Note that sometimes user just fail and can't find procedure to reproduce on
his own.
For example, document might fail to open or formatted text might change
when saved file reopened.
It needs some kind of profession to describe what have been done.
Sometimes even developers won't be able to reproduce the issue even he or
she see it happen.
So I think it is a good idea to blame any side.


2015-11-10 6:11 GMT+08:00 Tommy :

> Joel Madero wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID
>>>
>>> IMHO the time spent to implement this new
>>> ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless...
>>>
>>> in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user
>>> so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't
>>> provide necessary informations.
>>>
>>
>> To put this in context - this began after several users over the course
>> of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status.
>>
>
>
> I don't understand why those people should feel irate or offended if the
> INVALID state is due to their deficiency to provide a valide testcase or
> answers to legitimate QA questions...
>
> most of the time you got an INVALID tag after 7 months of inactivity...
> so, again, no reason to blame QA if you can't answer questions after 7
> months
>
> I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED
>> will make
>> them feel better, that's fine.
>>
>
>
> anyway, whatever you decide is ok for me.
> but I think we are paying too much attention to users who are not giving a
> valualble contribution to Bugzilla and LibO in general
>
>
> I really don't care much about feelings of bad bug submitters.
> probably most of them would deserve a PEBKAC status :-)
>
>
> This will mostly be used by the automatic
>> pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this
>> new status.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Joel
>>
>
> bye, Tommy
>
>
> ___
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>



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

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

[Tommy]

Joel Madero wrote:





I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID

IMHO the time spent to implement this new
ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless...

in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user
so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't
provide necessary informations.


To put this in context - this began after several users over the course
of a few weeks got quite irate at the WFM/Invalid status.



I don't understand why those people should feel irate or offended if the 
INVALID state is due to their deficiency to provide a valide testcase or 
answers to legitimate QA questions...


most of the time you got an INVALID tag after 7 months of inactivity...
so, again, no reason to blame QA if you can't answer questions after 7 
months



I tend to agree that INVALID is accurate but if ABANDONED and/or EXPIRED will 
make
them feel better, that's fine.



anyway, whatever you decide is ok for me.
but I think we are paying too much attention to users who are not giving 
a valualble contribution to Bugzilla and LibO in general



I really don't care much about feelings of bad bug submitters.
probably most of them would deserve a PEBKAC status :-)



This will mostly be used by the automatic
pings and most QA people probably won't have to do much to maintain this
new status.


Best,
Joel


bye, Tommy

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

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

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Joel Madero  wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>>
>> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
>> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
>> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
>> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
>> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
>> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
>> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the
> rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient
> information but it's a start :)

I do not care either about the exact wording... the only point I'm
looking to improve upon is that
'Works for me' is a cop-out and is bound to put the recipient in a bad
mood even a willing and cooperative reporter.
I'd like wording that reflect that the bug is not just 'ignored' or
the report dismissed, but that it cannot be acted upon, due to
a lack of follow up by the reporter or other in position to reproduce,
or due to an apparent
impossibility to reproduce coupled with a lack of exploitable data
from the original report.

Yes it won't prevent some of the outburst we see on occasion, but at
least it won't feed the beast
either.

Norbert
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Joel Madero  wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>>
>> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
>> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
>> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
>> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
>> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
>> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
>> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the
> rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient
> information but it's a start :)

I do not care either about the exact wording... the only point I'm
looking to improve upon is that
'Works for me' is a cop-out and is bound to put the recipient in a bad
mood even a willing and cooperative reporter.
I'd like wording that reflect that the bug is not just 'ignored' or
the report dismissed, but that it cannot be acted upon, due to
a lack of follow up by the reporter or other in position to reproduce,
or due to an apparent
impossibility to reproduce coupled with a lack of exploitable data
from the original report.

Yes it won't prevent some of the outburst we see on occasion, but at
least it won't feed the beast
either.

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

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

[Joel Madero]

> * ABANDONED
> * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat)
> * EXPIRED (Launchpad)

Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned
his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired
indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and
say "this is still a valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some
other such thing).

Couple other points:

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

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


Best,
Joel

___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[Joel Madero]

> * ABANDONED
> * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat)
> * EXPIRED (Launchpad)

Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned
his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired
indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and
say "this is still a valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some
other such thing).

Couple other points:

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

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


Best,
Joel

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

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

[Eike Rathke]

Hi Joel,

On Monday, 2015-11-09 09:23:20 -0800, Joel Madero wrote:

> > * ABANDONED
> > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat)
> > * EXPIRED (Launchpad)
> 
> Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned
> his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me,

Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
wouldn't fit either, IMHO..

  Eike

-- 
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
GPG key "ID" 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Better use 64-bit 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A here is why: https://evil32.com/
Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[Eike Rathke]

Hi Joel,

On Monday, 2015-11-09 09:23:20 -0800, Joel Madero wrote:

> > * ABANDONED
> > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat)
> > * EXPIRED (Launchpad)
> 
> Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned
> his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me,

Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
wouldn't fit either, IMHO..

  Eike

-- 
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
GPG key "ID" 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Better use 64-bit 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A here is why: https://evil32.com/
Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Joel Madero]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

>
> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
True - I'm happy with either of them. I'm not so sure this will tame the
rude users from going on rants about having to provide sufficient
information but it's a start :)

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

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

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

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

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

[Joel Madero]

On 11/09/2015 11:15 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
>> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
>> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
>> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
>> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
>> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
>> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
>> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
> INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
> and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved 
> one
> and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
> confusion.

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

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

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

[Joel Madero]

On 11/09/2015 11:15 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
>> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
>> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
>> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
>> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
>> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
>> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
>> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
> INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
> and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved 
> one
> and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
> confusion.

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

Best,
Joel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 09:23:20AM -0800, Joel Madero wrote:
> > * ABANDONED
> > * INSUFFICIENT DATA (RedHat)
> > * EXPIRED (Launchpad)
> 
> Of these I like ABANDONED as it indicates that the user abandoned
> his/her own bug. Insufficient Data is really wordy to me, Expired
> indicates that the user could just set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and
> say "this is still a valid bug" (mistaking "expired" for "fixed" or some
> other such thing).

Hmm, yeah. So my preference is EXPIRED followed closely by ABANDONED and last
INSUFFICIENT DATA. I already wrote my considerations about INSUFFICIENT DATA in
the other subthread.

Why do I prefer EXPIRED over ABANDONED? The first is less loaded with emotion,
while the latter implies some kind of guilt (at least to me). Thus the latter
has a higher chance of provocing the reporter into blame-gaming and trying to
prove that WE abondoned the bug and not HE/SHE. Since this is intended for bugs
where we assume there wont be any productive data following, I'd think that
would be counterproductive.

Best,

Bjoern

N.B.: The launchpad bug states names provoke the reporter early on (NEEDINFO is
called "incomplete" which is clearer in calling the reporter into action) and
if that doesnt provide results tries to silently kill the issues (bugs get
auto-set to "expired" after 90 days of inactivity with a countdown shown as
long the bug is in "incomplete".  When it happens nobody complains as launchpad
already gave those 90 days before and you had it coming.)
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..

That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved one
and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
confusion.

Best,

Bjoern
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
> not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
> time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
> reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
> WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
> given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
> wouldn't fit either, IMHO..

That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved one
and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
confusion.

Best,

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

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

[Joel Madero]

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

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


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

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

[Joel Madero]

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

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


Best,
Joel
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[Eike Rathke]

Hi Bjoern,

On Monday, 2015-11-09 20:15:39 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
> > not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
> > time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
> > reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
> > WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
> > given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
> > wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> 
> That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
> INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
> and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved 
> one
> and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
> confusion.

Hu? No. What I meant is have INSUFFICIENTDATA on the same level as
WORKSFORME and INVALID, a status attribute, not a status. So if a bug
was in status NEEDINFO for some time and info wasn't provided it can be
set to RESOLVED INSUFFICIENTDATA and then closed (we may even think of
skipping RESOLVED and directly go to CLOSED instead, as it is no
resolution, just closing a bug).

  Eike

-- 
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
GPG key "ID" 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Better use 64-bit 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A here is why: https://evil32.com/
Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

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

[Eike Rathke]

Hi Bjoern,

On Monday, 2015-11-09 20:15:39 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 07:10:44PM +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > Insufficient Data though can also be used for situations where a bug can
> > not be reproduced due to, well, insufficient data.. i.e. happened one
> > time crash and no stack trace, no exact steps to reproduce, even if the
> > reporter was or would be willing to provide ... all cases where
> > WORKSFORME sounds a bit odd and lax (which is a valid resolution if the
> > given steps do not lead to the described failure), but ABANDONED
> > wouldn't fit either, IMHO..
> 
> That would almost NEEDINFO. The only difference between NEEDINFO and
> INSUFFICIENT DATA is that one is considered resolved, while the other one isnt
> and there is no way to see from the wording that NEEDINFO is the unresolved 
> one
> and INSUFFICIENT DATA is the resolved one. Its likely that will lead to
> confusion.

Hu? No. What I meant is have INSUFFICIENTDATA on the same level as
WORKSFORME and INVALID, a status attribute, not a status. So if a bug
was in status NEEDINFO for some time and info wasn't provided it can be
set to RESOLVED INSUFFICIENTDATA and then closed (we may even think of
skipping RESOLVED and directly go to CLOSED instead, as it is no
resolution, just closing a bug).

  Eike

-- 
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
GPG key "ID" 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Better use 64-bit 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A here is why: https://evil32.com/
Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

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

[Tommy]

Robinson Tryon wrote:

Hi all,

As mentioned in the ESC call, it could be helpful to add a new
Bugzilla Status that encompasses bugs that have been abandoned/don't
have enough data.

=> What type of bugs would this cover?

* User isn't willing to share private document with anyone, and we
can't reproduce



if the user don't wanna share data where we can reproduce his/her bug 
it's not a valid bug report anonymizing strategies are described in 
the wiki to hide sensible data so there's no real excuse not to share files.




* Bug sits in NEEDINFO status for 6+ months
* (other situations?)

...



if the user don't wanna provide additional infos after 6 months of 
waiting this is not a valid bug report...


consider that after 6 month you receive a NEEDINFO ping giving you an 
extra month to give infos before being labeled as INVALID, so that's 7 
months of waiting, a timeframe which should be enough to provide a valid 
answer to many question


> => Reasoning:
>
> * We currently mark abandoned bugs as RESOLVED WORKSFORME, or RESOLVED
> INVALID, but an additional Status value could help us be more precise
> in indicating why a bug has been set aside.
> * An additional Status would allow us to be more diplomatic with tough
> users, and avoid the potential negatives of "INVALID" or "WORKS FOR
> ME" on such bugs


I think we should keep labeling those as INVALID

IMHO the time spent to implement this new 
ABANDONED/EXPIRED/WHATEVERstate will be almost useless...


in both cases the fault of the bug closure is the reporting user
so I really do not care at all being diplomatic with people who don't 
provide necessary informations.


just my 2 cents



___
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/