On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 20:08 +1200, Michael Adams wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:34:49 -0500
> Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On 3/20/06, CPHennessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > Uwe,
> > > It may also be interesting to create a macro which would be
> > > installed by default and available thru "Help" -> "Report a bug"
> > > which would step the users thru reporting a bug.
> > >
> > 
> > That would be great!  Good idea CPH!  Have you filed an IZ enhancement
> > request yet?  ;-)
> > 
> 
> I really pity the developers now. My guess is they would just ignore IZ
> as it would be flooded with rubbish. May reality prevail... please
> folks.

While it may not suit all issues, what if this proposed "Help -> Report
a bug" wizard also allowed recording a macro that reproduces the bug,
which can then be sent to OOo? What if special templates were also
provided for each document type to provide sample content for the user
to record their macro against, which could be sent back to OOo along
with the recorded macro? This would save the user having to invent
fictitious content and ease privacy concerns. It would also mean that
OOo gets known and consistent content that could be easier for OOo to
work with, and perhaps even make it possible to automate much of the
preliminary verification process. It might also provide regression test
cases for future releases.

I don't know if any human looks at the automatic crash reports that we
are encouraged to send via the recovery dialog, but there must be
thousands of them. I suspect that these are feed into an automated
system, perhaps just building up stats and used to prioritise areas for
closer review etc.

With the IZ reports, there are volunteer QA people who verify and/or
check for duplicates and generally screen reports before, I presume, the
developers commit serious time to them. I also imagine that the
developers are good at recognising serious issues that they see in the
pipeline too.

One thing is for sure though - providing a good problem description,
clear reproducible steps and a sample test case will usually get your
report confirmed by the QA people more quickly, and that means a
developer will see it sooner. Beyond that I can't say.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to