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

2015-12-27 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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?

2015-11-09 Thread 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/