Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 16:39 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > + would be nice to have some blog-posts / picture posts (Bjoern) I just finished mine. http://kohei.us/2014/11/03/seattle-librefest/ Kohei ___ 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 ... - correction ...
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:38 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 16:39 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > > * Seattle Hackfest (Robinson/Norbert) > ... > > + badly need ways to stop 'building' consuming the hack-fest (Michael) > > + or a way to keep hand-holding after the hack-fest (Bjoern) > ... > > + vast majority of people wanted access to VM > > + monster communication problem with cloph ... > > + Robinson was briefed on how to do that (cloph) > > + Info emailed to hackfest devs (Robinson) > > -> communication droppeded <- > > Incidentally it was just pointed out to me that "monster communication > problem with cloph" could read as some hyper-criticism of him =) that's > by no means the case - as (I hope) the context points out as we started > to dig deeper there were probably several failures of communication / > preparedness on the topic somewhere in the gap between cloph -> Robinson > -> other mentors -> hack-fest attendees. And also, my comment was never meant as a criticism of "someone not doing the job". It was rather a simple piece of feedback that I hoped would be useful for future hackfest planning. So, let's not take this as a "failure" please. We had a successful hackfest, and everybody chipped in what they could. No need to paint this negatively. Kohei ___ 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 ...
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 20:00 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: >+ I think that the best would be to have this option locale to the > sorting dialog instead of global for Calc > Is it something possible? Not unless someone volunteers. FYI it would require a fair amount of code change and a change in ODF file format. Kohei ___ 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 ...
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 20:13 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: > Le 30/10/2014 20:05, Kohei Yoshida a écrit : > > On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 20:00 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: > >>+ I think that the best would be to have this option locale to the > >> sorting dialog instead of global for Calc > >> Is it something possible? > > > > Not unless someone volunteers. FYI it would require a fair amount of > > code change and a change in ODF file format. > > Is it not possible to have a checkbox in the sorting dialog without > saving its state to the file or not in the file but in the registry ? Anything UI related, I'll defer to UX people. So, no further comment from me other than what I've already said. You are welcome to investigate and prove me wrong, of course. You are actually encouraged to. Kohei ___ 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 Whiteboard Statuses
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 16:07 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:06:07AM -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > So, to me personally, this practice of "witch-hunting" (or > > finger-pointing) really bogs me down, especially I receive such notice > > hundreds of times during a typical development cycle. > > There is no witch-hunting in this and lets please not put it in there by > escalating to such vocabulary. The simple fact is that the author of a change > is the one most obvious person to shed light on the issue. I'm only saying how that may be peceived (and some are quite aggressive). Anyway, feel free to ignore that if you are not interested. > Having this info fast and at the right place is essential to have a good view > on the state of the release and keeping everything smooth on track for > train-based release schedule. Yup, and normally the last person that touched the area gets all the pleasure of being notified of similar sounding bugs. > Of course, if there are concrete proposals on how to improve interaction > between triagers and developers that work for everyone, those are most > welcome! No, I don't have a concrete proposal since I'm just giving my feedback. Ignore me then, and continue on. Bye, Kohei ___ 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 Whiteboard Statuses
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:41 +0200, Joren DC wrote: > Hi Kohei, > > Kohei Yoshida schreef op 5/06/2014 15:06: > > So, to me personally, this practice of "witch-hunting" (or > > finger-pointing) really bogs me down, especially I receive such notice > > hundreds of times during a typical development cycle. > Well, that's at least not what I'm talking about right now. > (1) we (I) are (am) only talking about bugs we can track down to 1 > single commit or developer. Not a developer in general by component > (writer, calc, ...), which we do now to try to avoid as much as > possible. I'm not sure that there are that many QA'ers or reporters > which can track down to 1 single developer/commit? > I'm not a developer at all and just to provide me an idea: do you still > receive that much CC's on bugs compared to months/a year ago? No because I turend off the notification. But occasional query for such bug reports turns up still quite a bit, and most of them are general Calc bugs and the reporters just add me, Eike and Markus as part of their routine bug triaging. > > (2) we discussed this yesterday on the QA-call too. Our conclusion was > to just kindly ping a developer in particular on IRC. > (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2014/June_04#Topics_for_ESC.3F) > > If not I still am 'pro' an active approach and mail the particular > developer (in private) or put him/her in CC. > > (3) and as far my experience concerns... I already know which developers > are and are not open for a nice (not pointing, just asking) SINGLE > message. I think other core QA members do have such experience too. > > Since statistically every change one makes can and will cause *some* > > regressions in some obscure corners, this disadvantages those who make > > lots of changes, even when those changes are to fix other regressions > > and bugs. > True, but luckely not all regression cases are 'obscure' and border cases. It's pretty subjective what a "border" case is. For the bug reporter, the bug he/she reported is not a border case but a serious regression "that needs immediate fixing!" even though others don't see it that way. > > And some of these sometimes escalate to a (often repeated) demand of a > > revert of the commit, which is another blow especially when the change > > itself took weeks and weeks of careful coding to get conceived. One can > > be as careful as possible, and still (and almost always) break somethign > > somewhere. > Again: true. But we are not talking about: bug the particular developer > as much as possible, if he doesn't react/revert/fix spam his email and > IRC with threats to revert that commit ... I'm just throwing that in because it happens quite often, and is a growing concern for me. It's not targeted toward you personally. > I think we have to find the most constructive approach to get a > regression bug fixed, with respect to the situation (developer, commit > message, ...) and severity. Sure, but please keep in mind that we currently don't have enough developers to fix all regressions, and I dare say with the current development resources (and people's (un)willingness to fix bugs), we could probably only fix 5% or less of all bugs tagged regressions. And each regression fix will (yes I'm using the word "will" here on purpose) create at least 2 or 3 new ones, and the cycle only continues. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but that's how I see the situation. Kohei ___ 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 Whiteboard Statuses
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 14:42 +0200, Joren DC wrote: > Hi Xisco, *, > > Xisco Faulí schreef op 5/06/2014 10:32: > > does it make sense to include another status for the regression issues > > where the problematic commit has been identified ? I'm asking it > > because yesterday I spent some time on this task and I could chase > > down two regressions, one of them made by a Collabora developer ( I've > > already sent him an email ) and the other by a merged AOO commit. > I'm not sure about this. So, to me personally, this practice of "witch-hunting" (or finger-pointing) really bogs me down, especially I receive such notice hundreds of times during a typical development cycle. Since statistically every change one makes can and will cause *some* regressions in some obscure corners, this disadvantages those who make lots of changes, even when those changes are to fix other regressions and bugs. And some of these sometimes escalate to a (often repeated) demand of a revert of the commit, which is another blow especially when the change itself took weeks and weeks of careful coding to get conceived. One can be as careful as possible, and still (and almost always) break somethign somewhere. Kohei ___ 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] fdo#77479
This bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77479 fell through the crack and became "confirmed" but it really isn't. It went from UNCONFIRMED -> WORKSFORME -> REOPENED and REOPENED is handled as if it's been confirmed, hence the problem. Could anyone give this a quick look? Thanks, Kohei ___ 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] fdo#77409 needs a bit more specifics
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 12:30 -0400, Jay Lozier wrote: > Kohei, > > I can not confirm the bug on 4.2.3.3/Manjaro Linux. Arrow key movement > is working correctly on my box. Left, right, up, and down arrows move > the active cell in proper directions; one cell per key stroke. I would > re-rate this as needs more info. > > I have added my comments to the report. Thanks Jay for your quick action! Much appreciated. Kohei ___ 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] fdo#77409 needs a bit more specifics
Hi there, With regard to this bug report https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77409 could someone please verify this, or set the STATUS to UNCONFIRMED? It appears that this bug has not been properly triaged and the reporter set the status to NEW directly. And either I cannot reproduce this or I don't understand the description of the problem. Thanks for your help. Kohei ___ 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] vector::_M_range_check error
Hi Terrence, On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 11:36 -0400, Terrence Enger wrote: > However, I have not touched the > resolutions--76008 and 76148 both being DUP's of 76470--as I am > impressed by the reported problems disappearing in an interval which > includes commit c78d1bb "fdo#76470: Avoid joining new formula cells > individually.". Do we care about the distinction between resolutions > DUP vs. WORKSFORME? No, not really. These are tricky cases and it's hard to deteremine whether they were all fixed by the same commit or not. I'll leave the decision up to you. Normally, such distionction is not that critical for already resolved bugs (from my POV). Thanks a lot! Kohei ___ 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] vector::_M_range_check error
Hi there, Just FYI, the error message "vector::_M_range_check", if you ever see this, is generated from an STL library itself, and is a very common error message associated with a out-of-range access to array. What this means is that, just because you see this same error message in 2 bug reports doesn't necessariliy mean they are related. So, no need to close such bug reports as duplicates, or link them together in some ways just because of this error message. Thanks! Kohei ___ 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] Version field options way too fine grained
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 08:19 -0700, m.a.riosv wrote: > Hi, > perhaps only two digits could be a bit short, IMO three can be a more > balanced option, because it has a good correspondence with public releases. Yeah, I think I'd be happy with this. Also, part of the problems comes from the total-unsorted-ness of version items in the query page. For instance, * 3.5.1 release is followed by 3.4.6 RC1 * 4.2.00alpha0+Master comes between 4.1.0.0alpha1 and 4.1.0.0beta1 (the reason why I missed it) * "3.3 all versions" comes after "3.6.7.1 rc" * "4.3.0.0alpha0+Master" comes between "4.2.0.0beta1" and "4.2.0.0beta2" and so on. Anyway, it appears that one can use a regular expression to filter versions, which I was previously looking for but didn't realize it was under the "Custom Search" section. I can just use that to make it fit my workflow. Thanks, Kohei ___ 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] Version field options way too fine grained
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 14:56 +, V Stuart Foote wrote: > @Kohei, > > Not so sure, because it goes the other way as well. > > When attempting to triage a bug, having the correct release --or > better the commit information to exactly reproduce the issue as > reported, and work backward to point of origin-- the granular field > remains very helpful. Whiteboard can be used for that, and we do use whiteboard for "which granular version the bug is fixed in". > So perhaps it is not the best for data query and monitoring, but > still very helpful for isolating the issues. I'd say leave it as is > and improve scope of your query logic. There are other ways extra information can be embedded. IMO fields in bugzilla are there mostly for querying purposes, not to provide extra info in case it is needed. ___ 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] Version field options way too fine grained
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 09:58 -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > IMO we should only have 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 etc as version. All these too > fine grained version numbers only serve to make bugs discoverable. I mean "make bugs *un*-discoverable". ___ 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] Version field options way too fine grained
Hi there, Another thing I'd like to inquire about is that currently we have way too fine-grained version field options it's becoming increasingly difficult to query for "give me all bugs for 4.2" and similar. For instance, even for the 4.2 branch we have 4.2.0.0alpha0+Master, 4.2.0.0alpha1 4.2.0.0beta1 ... 4.2.0.1rc 4.2.0.2rc ... and so on. We have way too many to list all. 4.1 is in a similar situation. I have my saved query and try to select all relevant versions but it's prone to errors. Today I just discovered a regression that I didn't see before because its version field was set to 4.2.0.0alpha0+Master which I didn't include in my saved search. IMO we should only have 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 etc as version. All these too fine grained version numbers only serve to make bugs discoverable. What do you guys think about this? Kohei ___ 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] Disallow REOPEN on ancient bugs
Hi there, I'm just wondering whether it's possible to disallow reopening of bugs if they are at least more than a year old (or whatever some arbitrary time period)? I've seen people re-opening bugs that were closed more than 2-3 years ago. This happens quite often. Kohei ___ 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] assertions from STL debug library
Hello Terrence, On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 15:42 -0400, Terrence Enger wrote: > Greetings, > > I have noticed several bugs where my debug build shows the debug STL > library raising an assertion. Would it be useful to have a tracker > bug for these? A word on the whiteboard? Just filing it as a normal crasher bug would be my advice. Technically speaking, an assertion from STL debug utility is a "crasher" that for whatever reason didn't result in an actual crash due to nothing other than just pure luck. ;-) > BTW, I *assume* that if I encounter such an assertion, it is relevant > to whatever bug I am looking at: perhaps earlier, hopefully more > informative, quite likely somehow interesting. Is this a good > assumption? Yes. A crash when the STL debug turned on is an indication of what would otherwise be a very hard to debug problem. So, if you find those, by all means treat them as regular bugs. Just mention in your reproducible steps that you have used a dbgutil build (which will help those who are triaging), and be sure to attach a full stack trace. All the best, Kohei ___ 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] Calc freeze issues
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 11:33 +0100, M Henri Day wrote: > Kohei, any chance of a patch for Linux (in my specific case, deb) > users being posted in the near future, in addition to those you've > already posted for Windows and Mac users, respectively ?... Actually, I don't know personally. Let me CC cloph and see if he can suggest something toward this end. Meanwhile, I believe there is a way to install an rpm on the debian based system, and that's probably what people have been doing. I don't know the specifics though. Kohei ___ 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] 4.2.0 Calc bugs
Hi Joel, On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 22:22 -0800, Joel Madero wrote: > Thanks Kohei for your work - I'm sure you're swamped. That being said, > is there something QA can do to help organize for you? Or is a bug being > marked a regression against 4.2 sufficient? Yeah. What you guys have been doing is good enough for me. I can't ask for more. Thanks, Kohei ___ 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] 4.2.0 Calc bugs
Hi there, The amount of Calc regresssions we are dealing with in 4.2.0 is overwhelming, and I don't think anyone would deny that. I'm also hard at work to try to fix them as much as my time allows. Having said that, I'm generally very pleased with the quality of the bug reports we are getting. They are mostly very concise and to the point, and helps me write unit tests based on the descriptions of the bugs. So, thanks everyone. Kohei ___ 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] Calc freeze issues
Hi there, FYI, a large number of Calc freeze problems may be attributed to the same root cause, which I fixed for Bug 72470 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72470 The problem code kicks in when you have a document that has at least one cell containing mixed script types. Pretty much any action can trigger this. Typing a new value into a cell, copy-n-pasting a range of cells, changing cell format, inserting cells, sorting, you name it. But what does mixed script types mean? Internally Calc categorizes text language types into 3 script types: latin, asian, and complex. Latin covers the western languages such as English, French, German etc, Asian covers Chinese, Japanese, Korean (and Vietnamese?), and Complex covers Arabic, Hebrew etc. If you see a bug report that claims Calc freezes after doing ABC, and it only does in the new 4.2.0 release (or beta and RC before that), check the content of the file and see if it has mixed script types. If so, it may be caused by the same root cause as the above bug. Please re-check those bugs again with the build that contains the fix for that bug. I've browsed through bugzilla last night, and I saw quite a number of them that may fit the profile. Thanks, Kohei ___ 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] Request for bug fix verification
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 23:09 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > I'd like to keep this a separate bug, though, rather than re-opening > fdo#66969... I've filed a new one. Let's track this one there. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72774 Thanks, Kohei ___ 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] Request for bug fix verification
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 22:56 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Let us keep the list informed of our discussion.
>
> Good night.
>
> Kohei
>
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 04:30 +0100, Sebastian Goetze wrote:
> > Hi Kohei,
> >
> > I downloaded the bugs ods ('group data') and just quickly confirmed my
> > regression on the 4.2 beta :-(
> > Try set a project filter and then try get rid of some checkmarks in the
> > 'Project Name' filter...
Ah, indeed. When you change the page field settings *immediately after*
the file is loaded, the table becomes empty again. But when you first
refresh the table *then* change the page field settings, it works as
expected.
I'd like to keep this a separate bug, though, rather than re-opening
fdo#66969...
Thanks,
Kohei
___
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] Request for bug fix verification
Hi Sebastian,
Let us keep the list informed of our discussion.
Good night.
Kohei
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 04:30 +0100, Sebastian Goetze wrote:
> Hi Kohei,
>
> I downloaded the bugs ods ('group data') and just quickly confirmed my
> regression on the 4.2 beta :-(
> Try set a project filter and then try get rid of some checkmarks in the
> 'Project Name' filter...
>
> G'Night
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 12/17/2013 2:24 AM, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > If some of you have some little spare time, could you verify my fix for
> > the following bug?
> >
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66969
> >
> > Sebastian tried to verify it but he says the bug is still there. My
> > initial suspicion was that the build he used didn't contain my fix, but
> > according to the git hash he provided from the About dialog, it should
> > be there.
> >
> > So, I'm trying to figure out whether the bug is really there, or just
> > some sort of build mis-match.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Kohei
> >
>
___
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] Request for bug fix verification
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 17:56 -0800, mariosv wrote: > Hi Kohei, > > I have reported in the bug with a screenshot about what I see after > refresh, if I am not wrong it is fine with: > Win7x64Ultimate > Version: 4.2.0.0.beta2+Build ID: > d663228bd348c844f38914c9e2167ef01fadf3b3 > TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:libreoffice-4-2, Time: > 2013-12-14_23:15:05 Hi Miguel, Thanks a lot for the quick response! Much appreciated. Kohei ___ 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] Request for bug fix verification
Hi there, If some of you have some little spare time, could you verify my fix for the following bug? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=66969 Sebastian tried to verify it but he says the bug is still there. My initial suspicion was that the build he used didn't contain my fix, but according to the git hash he provided from the About dialog, it should be there. So, I'm trying to figure out whether the bug is really there, or just some sort of build mis-match. TIA, Kohei ___ 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] Unpublishing API post 4.0
Sorry. Posted to the wrong mailing list. This should have been sent to the developer list, not the QA list. ___ 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] Unpublishing API post 4.0 (was: Re: minutes of ESC call ...)
On 02/07/2013 11:04 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: * un-publishing interface in 4.0.1 (Kohei / Stephan) + concern about doing that in a micro release. + resolved on the mailing list. So, we've resolved this particular API in question (css.document.MediaDescriptor) since that one was, although marked 'published', practically equivalent of being unpublished. But I still have concerns in this area. What if we discover an API that should be (or should've been) unpublished way after the initial 4.0 release? This may happen as we venture into areas where nobody has really ventured into up until now, and discover some obscure use of "published" API which hinders further rework unless the API is unpublished. Since we still have lots of areas in our code base where nobody has stepped up to claim maintainer-ship, this is a very likely possibility. -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] Request for confirming a bug
On 01/28/2013 10:52 AM, Kohei Yoshida wrote: I have hard time reproducing this bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 Can someone do a bit more triaging to narrow it down a bit? And many thanks for those who've chipped in! All the best, Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] Request for confirming a bug
I have hard time reproducing this bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 Can someone do a bit more triaging to narrow it down a bit? Thanks, Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs with assignee but status NEW
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Rainer Bielefeld < libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote: > > Actually, I could go a step further and change the assignee of these >> bugs with status NEW to the default assignee to further remove >> ambiguity, >> > > > It was the the core of my question whether you wanted to have those Bug in > some kind of abeyance between NEW and ASSIGNED. I think currently we do it > so that bugs with Status ASSIGNED always have an assignee different from < > libreoffice-b...@lists.freedesktop.org>, and un-ASSIGNED have the default > assignee. So - if we do not see concerns here - I would appreciate to > follow your suggestion to change to the default assignees of the not > fixed Bugs in the query. That might encourage volunteers to engage. > Ok. I just reset the assignee of those bugs (those that are assigned to me with status NEW) to the default assignee. Now they are totally in line with the current workflow (I hope). Also, FYI, I do track my bugs of interest using different methods other than the assignee field, so this change won't affect me at all. Best, Kohei ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Bugs with assignee but status NEW
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Rainer Bielefeld < libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote: > Hi Kohei, > > I see that you changed status of several bugs [1] with you as assignee > from status ASSIGNED to NEW. > > My interpretation is that you are intending to do some work on it, but > currently that particular Bug is far at the end of your priority list and > you are not planning activity in nearby future? > No, those bugs were assigned to me originally by someone else, as part of the very old workflow. I had no plan to work on them in the first place. I changed them to NEW because we all agreed that if the status is NEW, the assignee is not necessarily working on the bug and people are free to grab it. ASSIGNED status may give people the false impression that the assignee is currently working on the bug or plan to work on it some time in the future, which is not the case with these bugs. Please leave a brief note here concerning your intentions, and may be we > should leave a note in the Wiki at QA/BugTriage [1], How to Report Bugs in > LibreOffice [3] or similar to avoid unnecessary ambiguity and checking ups > in the bugs? > Nah. As far as I know, in the current workflow, we don't assign a bug to anyone unless someone voluntarily assigns it to him or herself. What I did is nothing new in the scope of the current QA workflow. Actually, I could go a step further and change the assignee of these bugs with status NEW to the default assignee to further remove ambiguity, and make it in line with the current workflow. That may be more appropriate. The only thing I could see added in the above wiki page is perhaps mention what the ASSIGNED status may mean. Kohei ___ 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] Request for stack trace, fdo#55777
Can anyone reproduce this bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55777 *AND* be able to provide a track trace? That would be a huge help on bringing this bug forward to a resolution. Note that this crasher happens on Windows only, which makes it slightly more difficult to come up with a stack trace... Anyway, thanks in advance. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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 ...
On 09/20/2012 11:24 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: 48366 All Calc/xlsxFILEOPEN for particular .xlsx impossible, "General Error" AI: + opens fine in master, crashes in libreoffice-3-6 (Kohei) Just identified and backported the relevant fix from master to the 3-6 branch with my sign-off. I was originally a fix from Muthu. https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/gitweb?p=core.git;a=commitdiff;h=3ad52a6453ff612409123db29dc74a9071789aab I'll create another thread requesting a backport to 3-6-2. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] [EDITING] LibreO version 3.6.0alpha1 (Build ID: 66f01b5) Insert sheet from file doesn't work for CSV files.
On 06/04/2012 04:51 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM, MiguelAngel wrote: Can someone also verify, before report bug? Menu/Insert/Insert sheet from file doesn't work for CSV files, do nothing, but works for ods or hmtl. Yes, I can confirm this. This is probably my bug, since I've changed the type detection code especially around handling of text files. It is my guess that we are failing to come up with the correct (calc csv) filter type in the type detection code. Hm. Actually the type detection is working correctly. So it's not the cause for this bug. Still digging deeper. -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] [EDITING] LibreO version 3.6.0alpha1 (Build ID: 66f01b5) Insert sheet from file doesn't work for CSV files.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:16 PM, MiguelAngel wrote: > Can someone also verify, before report bug? > > Menu/Insert/Insert sheet from file > > doesn't work for CSV files, do nothing, but works for ods or hmtl. Yes, I can confirm this. This is probably my bug, since I've changed the type detection code especially around handling of text files. It is my guess that we are failing to come up with the correct (calc csv) filter type in the type detection code. Please file a bug for this and assign it to me. The thing is, I only have 2 days left before I leave for 3 weeks. So I can't guarantee I can get this fixed by then, but I will try. Kohei ___ 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] Help dealing with this
Hello, I think we could use some help dealing with an ugly personal attack disguised as a bug report. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49115 It's a bug reporter like this that makes me lose hope in a FOSS project such as this one. Best, Kohei ___ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] bibisecting HowTo published on the wiki
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 17:00 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > This 'bibisecting' can be done by anyone, even by people with no > hacking > skills - so please, if you have a "favorite" regression in > LibreOffice, > try bibisect, and point us (developers) to when it happened - I am > sure > the bug will get much more attention than without that :-) And if people need more specific task, having someone run bibisect on the following bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40320 would be great, and that would serve as a good exercise on how to use bibisect, I hope. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] 3.5.0 QA ... from BHS 1 to BHS 2
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 16:22 +, Pedro Lino wrote: > >> To be honest I'm puzzled that a program which reportedly is used by 25 > >> *million* people worldwide has half a dozen people in QA... I guess this > >> shows a lot about human nature :( > > > > Could you clarify on this? I'm not sure how to interpret this. > > I meant that there are (reportedly) so many people downloading and > using LO that it is absurd that so few are willing to give something > back... And we aren't even talking about money... just a few minutes > of their time... Gotcha. Yes, I agree; it's a shame indeed. Although in my observation those same users aren't too shy about reporting problems in forums and other communication mediums. Perhaps there is something about bugzilla and its environment that hold them back. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] 3.5.0 QA ... from BHS 1 to BHS 2
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 10:51 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > I'm the one you > made the change Correction: I'm the one *that* made the change I hate typing. -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] 3.5.0 QA ... from BHS 1 to BHS 2
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 07:12 -0800, Pedro wrote: > OTH more releases means more features but also more bugs. And because new > bugs occur, old bugs are left behind. > Here is an example of what I'm talking about (and the reason why I insisted > on giving more weight to 3.4.5 than to 3.5.0...) > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Blood-pressure-chart-doesn-t-work-tt3646489.html#a3647580 The truth is that different people have different pet peeve bugs they want backported to 3.4.x, and we can't respond to all of them because it's extra work. Backporting a change is not free, someone has to review the change and make sure that change won't introduce regressions. And that's not as easy as you may think, since a lot of things are different between 3.4 and 3.5, and 3.4 being marked stable, there is additional effort required to ensure no regressions. As for the bug you mentioned, you just need to prod someone to review, sign off, and backport that change. I can't do it since I'm the one you made the change; it needs to be reviewed by another developer. > To be honest I'm puzzled that a program which reportedly is used by 25 > *million* people worldwide has half a dozen people in QA... I guess this > shows a lot about human nature :( Could you clarify on this? I'm not sure how to interpret this. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc ___ 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] Can't paste formulas between 3.4.4 and 3.5.0
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Pedro Lino wrote: > Hi guys > > I was copying cells between two open spreadsheets, one in 3.4.4 final > and another on LibO-dev 3.5.0 ( a286353-090bcba-3bf3b94) aka > master~2011-12-02_22.36.35_libodev35 from Win-x86@6 > > When I pasted a cell containing a formula, it got pasted as the > resulting value. This happens both ways. > > I have no problem transferring formulas between sheets of the same > workbook or even between windows of the same version of LO. > > The only obstacle is between windows of different versions of LO. > > Can someone confirm this before I post a bug report? It's a known limitation, and only happens when you copy&paste between two different instances of libreoffice (or openoffice for that matter). In reality this is not a huge concern since most users don't run two different versions of libreoffice (or openoffice) much less copy&paste stuff between them. If you copy&paste using the same version of libreoffice this won't happen. Kohei ___ 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/
