Re: Bugzilla: Keyword regression

2014-02-06 Thread Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Edwin Sharp el...@mail-page.com wrote:
 I'm against this recommendation.
 Nothing more harmful to AOO reputation than an old unanswered problem because:
 Lack of basic respect to the person who took the time to report it.
 An indication for no control over the project.


I think the primary sorting mechanism for fixes is based on user
impact, i.e., the severity of the issue, how many users will run into
it, and whether there are adequate workarounds.   An issue is not
necessarily more important just because it is old.

Regressions are special for a different reason.  A regression could be
high severity or low severity.  But a regression is caused by a recent
code change.  So with a regression we're more likely to have a
developer active in the project who caused the defect, who knows that
area of the code well and is able to fix it quickly.  It is easiest to
fix a new bug quickly than to investigate it years later.

I wonder whether a combination of the regression flag and the version
field would give us everything we need to know?  If something is
marked as found in version N and marked as regression then that tells
us that the regression occurred between version N-1 and N, yes?

-Rob


 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014, at 11:52, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
 Hi,

 currently the manual on
 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describekeywords.cgi seems to suggest to
 use that keyword also for problems what appeared between OOo 1.0.2 and
 OOo 1.0.3. Such use might be correct as a matter of form, but I think
 useless for QA and developers daly work.

 regression key word indicates a major priority for fixing a bug,
 because appearance of new problems is bad for AOO's reputation. But a
 regression between OOo 1.0.0 and OOo 1.0.1 from 2001 (as an overstated
 example) is nothing what should cause major reputation loss for AOO in 2014.

 So I recommend to limit use of Keyword regression for all Problems
 what appeared with AOO 3.4-dev or later and to add a corresponding hint
 in Bugzilla Help.

 BTW: I recommend to keep those hints in Bugzilla short (not more than 2
 text rows or so) and do link to more elaborated help in the Wiki (for
 example).

 Best regards

 Rainer

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org



RE: Bugzilla: Keyword regression

2014-02-06 Thread Amin Jacek Pędziwiater , ASUSCOREU

Rob, 'Not' for your enquire.
No N-1 but N+1 so better.
 ;
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: 06 February, 2014 3:35 PM
To: qa@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bugzilla: Keyword regression


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Edwin Sharp el...@mail-page.com wrote:
 I'm against this recommendation.
 Nothing more harmful to AOO reputation than an old unanswered problem because:
 Lack of basic respect to the person who took the time to report it.
 An indication for no control over the project.


I think the primary sorting mechanism for fixes is based on user
impact, i.e., the severity of the issue, how many users will run into
it, and whether there are adequate workarounds.   An issue is not
necessarily more important just because it is old.

Regressions are special for a different reason.  A regression could be
high severity or low severity.  But a regression is caused by a recent
code change.  So with a regression we're more likely to have a
developer active in the project who caused the defect, who knows that
area of the code well and is able to fix it quickly.  It is easiest to
fix a new bug quickly than to investigate it years later.

I wonder whether a combination of the regression flag and the version
field would give us everything we need to know?  If something is
marked as found in version N and marked as regression then that tells
us that the regression occurred between version N-1 and N, yes?

-Rob


 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014, at 11:52, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
 Hi,

 currently the manual on
 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/describekeywords.cgi seems to suggest to
 use that keyword also for problems what appeared between OOo 1.0.2 and
 OOo 1.0.3. Such use might be correct as a matter of form, but I think
 useless for QA and developers daly work.

 regression key word indicates a major priority for fixing a bug,
 because appearance of new problems is bad for AOO's reputation. But a
 regression between OOo 1.0.0 and OOo 1.0.1 from 2001 (as an overstated
 example) is nothing what should cause major reputation loss for AOO in 2014.

 So I recommend to limit use of Keyword regression for all Problems
 what appeared with AOO 3.4-dev or later and to add a corresponding hint
 in Bugzilla Help.

 BTW: I recommend to keep those hints in Bugzilla short (not more than 2
 text rows or so) and do link to more elaborated help in the Wiki (for
 example).

 Best regards

 Rainer

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org