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
Hi bfo,
this are interesting questions. I put back QA mailing list into CC
because there people there are interested.
bfo píše v Út 19. 06. 2012 v 11:24 -0700:
> This is a very nice workflow, but I have some questions:
> - how you define "Bug prevent users from making professional quality work?"
Joel Madero píše v St 20. 06. 2012 v 08:08 -0700:
> Thanks for the advice. I thought I had included the qa list, my
> mistake. As for the length, I agree and I almost didn't include it but
> that was an email in response to mine so I felt a bit obligated to
> respond despite the length.
If only I
Thanks for the advice. I thought I had included the qa list, my mistake. As
for the length, I agree and I almost didn't include it but that was an
email in response to mine so I felt a bit obligated to respond despite the
length.
I had another side question, the response to the thread was made her
Hi Joel,
Joel Madero píše v Út 19. 06. 2012 v 13:36 -0700:
> I moved this to a new thread because the subject here didn't really
> accurately portray the direction of the conversation
The mail includes many good questions and proposals that might move us
forward. I'll try to answer it later this
I moved this to a new thread because the subject here didn't really
accurately portray the direction of the conversation but I wanted to say I
have uploaded the latest flowchard:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/06/Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg
I wasn't sure how or if I needed a wi
I agree with the save comment, I'll change that right now. Also
realized I didn't put a note in for regressions so I added to the
bottom notes:
**Regressions**
Special attention should be paid to regressions. In most cases a
regression calls for an increase in priority but in some cases it will
no
Joel Madero píše v Po 18. 06. 2012 v 09:32 -0700:
> Version 2, changed orientation and tried to take comments into
> account. Let me know what you all think.
It is much better readable. I finally got a better picture :-)
Well, I think that it still need some thinking. You set "inability to
safe"
Joel Madero píše v Po 18. 06. 2012 v 07:04 -0700:
> I'll modify the orientation today or tomorrow and try to see where
> regression should fit. I think that it has to go in Priority and not in
> Severity.
Makes sense.
> As for how devs use it, I agree completely that right now it's
> almost u
Rainer Bielefeld píše v Po 18. 06. 2012 v 13:21 +0200:
> Joel Madero schrieb:
> > I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart.
>
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> great to see that all in a chart, your conclusions and definitions seem
> plausible.
>
> But the chart also shows the limitations o
I'll modify the orientation today or tomorrow and try to see where
regression should fit. I think that it has to go in Priority and not in
Severity. As for how devs use it, I agree completely that right now it's
almost useless but maybe if it becomes more uniform and it actually
provides some i
Joel Madero schrieb:
I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart.
Hi Joel,
great to see that all in a chart, your conclusions and definitions seem
plausible.
But the chart also shows the limitations of that concept: It's really
sophisticated, and no developer will sit at
Joel Madero píše v Pá 15. 06. 2012 v 23:09 -0700:
> I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart. Looking
> for input. I read through email threads and see that prioritizing bugs
> has been an interesting discussion but as of now looks to be pretty
> unsettled. I'm going to make a s
Hi Joel,
On 2012-06-15 at 23:09 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> I brainstormed a bit today and I came up with this flowchart. Looking
> for input. I read through email threads and see that prioritizing bugs
> has been an interesting discussion but as of now looks to be pretty
> unsettled. I'm going t
Hello,
may I suggest that this list of eight important points of consideration
should be included in this http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage
page?
For me it would be great if I could have an authorative advise about how
to deal with open bugs...
Greetings,
Marc
Am 08.06.2012 12:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 11:14:05PM +0700, Korrawit Pruegsanusak wrote:
> And yes, the "we" here is now including you, Joel. :-)
Apropos: If you are able, it would be great if you could join the next QA call
- it will be on 2012-06-12 14:00 UTC. Some things are easier to coordinate on
the
pho
On 08/06/12 18:33, Joel Madero wrote:
> I just realized that there is no CONFIRMED, I think this would be a
> helpful classification but if it can't/won't be added then I still feel
> like we should differentiate confirmed from non confirmed in some manner.
this state does exist, it is called "NEW
I just realized that there is no CONFIRMED, I think this would be a helpful
classification but if it can't/won't be added then I still feel like we
should differentiate confirmed from non confirmed in some manner.
This could be as simple as making it ASSIGNED TO and have it blank or just
default l
Hello Joel, all,
First, a big thank you from me! :-)
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Joel Madero wrote:
> 2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm doing
> the following if there hasn't been action for 30+ days:
> a. If it's stated that the bug was fixed in a recent re
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:17:51AM -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> If someone asked "is this reproducible in the latest release", but didn't
> say anything else as to if they themselves had tried to reproduce it. I
> would mark as NEEDINFO. I think that this is a bad policy as we can't
> expect users t
One more thing to add to this. Last night when I did some (I think I did
about 25-50 so it wasn't too many) I was doing the following:
If someone asked "is this reproducible in the latest release", but didn't
say anything else as to if they themselves had tried to reproduce it. I
would mark as NEE
Hi Joel,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:49:52PM -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over at
> freedesktop bugs
> [...]
> I hope I'm not overstepping, just trying to help as much as possible as it
> seems like there is a bit of a back log. If th
Hi Joel,
On 2012-06-07 at 23:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> 1. If there has been a request for information and there has been no
> response for 30+ days I'm putting NEEDINFO
>
> 2. If two or more people have said that they do not have the bug I'm
> doing the following if there hasn't been action
Hi Joel,
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 23:49 -0700, Joel Madero wrote:
> Sure thing, I'll include it here and add a link as soon as I post over
> at freedesktop bugs
This is prolly best on the libreoffice-qa list (I just CC'd it) - but
it's interesting on the hackers list too. Your cleanup sounds
24 matches
Mail list logo
