On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:13:29 +0100, Tommy ba...@quipo.it wrote:
sure, QA consensus is necessary, however please wait the official
release of 4.3.4 which is planned in Week 47 , Nov 17, 2014 - Nov 23,
2014 so we are sure the user will retest the bugs with the latest up to
date version
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Tommy ba...@quipo.it wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:24:30 +0100, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com
wrote:
Ok. let's go ahead with the old NEW bugs (nice oxymoron).
I suggest waiting a few days after the incoming release of LibO 4.3.4
before running this
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:13:49 +0100, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com
wrote:
...
sure, QA consensus is necessary, however please wait the official
release
of 4.3.4 which is planned in Week 47 , Nov 17, 2014 - Nov 23, 2014 so
we
are sure the user will retest the bugs with the latest up to
On 11/13/2014 10:05 AM, Tommy wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:13:49 +0100, Joel Madero
jmadero@gmail.com wrote:
...
sure, QA consensus is necessary, however please wait the official
release
of 4.3.4 which is planned in Week 47 , Nov 17, 2014 - Nov 23, 2014
so we
are sure the user will
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 07:54:02 +0100, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/11/2014 10:42 PM, Tommy wrote:
my proposal is to ping:
UNCONFIRMED bugs older than 100 days
http://snipurl.com/29ejxgd (183 bugs)
I am not a fan at all for pinging unconfirmed bugs . . . already too
Ok. let's go ahead with the old NEW bugs (nice oxymoron).
I suggest waiting a few days after the incoming release of LibO 4.3.4
before running this ping.
I want to wait for QA call to discuss and give the +1 also. I don't
think two of us agreeing is sufficient :-b But assuming they +1 it, I
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:24:30 +0100, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com
wrote:
Ok. let's go ahead with the old NEW bugs (nice oxymoron).
I suggest waiting a few days after the incoming release of LibO 4.3.4
before running this ping.
I want to wait for QA call to discuss and give the +1
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 22:46:03 +0100, Robinson Tryon
bishop.robin...@gmail.com wrote:
moreover we have to decide if pinging just UNCONFIRMED old bugs or even
NEW
bugs (excluding the easy hacks).
if the ping campaign is accepted by the QA, we only have to decide the
timeframe of bugs
On 11/11/2014 10:42 PM, Tommy wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 22:46:03 +0100, Robinson Tryon
bishop.robin...@gmail.com wrote:
moreover we have to decide if pinging just UNCONFIRMED old bugs or
even NEW
bugs (excluding the easy hacks).
if the ping campaign is accepted by the QA, we only
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Tommy ba...@quipo.it wrote:
For now I'm not doing this just because there are so many other things
to do and as of now I'm not seeing a clear message as to what we're
doingI've seen at least 3-4 proposals with different links and the
like. I suggest this be
For now I'm not doing this just because there are so many other things
to do and as of now I'm not seeing a clear message as to what we're
doingI've seen at least 3-4 proposals with different links and the
like. I suggest this be resolved on QA call, finalized, maybe a wiki
written as to what
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:24:44 +0100, Joel Madero jmadero@gmail.com
wrote:
For now I'm not doing this just because there are so many other things
to do and as of now I'm not seeing a clear message as to what we're
doingI've seen at least 3-4 proposals with different links and the
like.
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 06:49:35 +0100, Tommy ba...@quipo.it wrote:
once 4.2.7 and 4.3.3 are now available, I think we could run the please
retest automated message to UNCONFIRMED bugs older than 6 months.
actually there's 94 out of them. see list:
http://snipurl.com/29eckcc
let's see what's
once 4.2.7 and 4.3.3 are now available, I think we could run the please
retest automated message to UNCONFIRMED bugs older than 6 months.
actually there's 94 out of them. see list:
http://snipurl.com/29eckcc
let's see what's the feedback ratio and then decide if doing the same on
older NEW
14 matches
Mail list logo
