On 04/23/12 23:51, MiguelAngel wrote:
El 23/04/12 17:17, Michael Meeks escribió:
Hi there,
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 19:04 +0530, dE . wrote:
The MAB has been chaotic lately... actually it turned out that I didn't
get a lot of mails and missed out a lot of comments following the LONG
discussion in the bug... so sorry about that, I noticed them now.
:-)
What I've been trying to add to MAB are broken import/export
features/regressions of Office XP/2003, 2007/2010 formats.
While I disagree with your analysis of the use of ODF, I agree that
fixing interoperability bugs is important. Having said that, I'd really
like to keep the number of most annoying bugs really low.
These bugs are more critical than a few crashes and I estimate there're
~200 bugs in LO's bugzilla alone.
If there are more than about 20 open MAB (currently there are
~70) it
becomes extremely easy to miss the screamingly urgent bugs that this was
setup to track. If you add another 200 there, no-one wins and we just
destroy this valuable place to look for "real blockers" :-)
There is some sort of near-zero-sum-game here, and hiding the
signal in
a ton of noise is not a good idea. Worse - without developer input, what
looks to you like a simple "inter-operability bug" may in fact be a
substantial feature that needs a man month to implement, so serious care
is needed with these.
Having said that, having a keyword for inter-operability
problems, that
we track the queries of, and try to increase interest in could be rather
good. IIRC we had an interop whiteboard status at some stage ? and we
could track that.
As a final thought - playing with the 'Most Annoying Bugs' is really
the pinacle of the QA effort :-) I'd suggest that for each person adding
or removing a bug from there, they also should do a handful of the more
vanilla work: checking and moving from UNCONFIRMED to a suitable state
eg. :-)
Just my 2 cents,
Michael.
+1 Michael.
Why we all think that bugs more interesting for us, must be the most
important for project?. Every time, we need to remember that we aren't
the bellybutton of world?.
No, I came to the conclusion via market statistics. If I want to see a
complex doc(x), xls(x), ppt(x) etc... I use google docs... I've no
issues, and for exports I use PDF.
So this issue generally matters the most.
Why we don't rethink twice in community/project terms, prior to set
the importance level to the bug?.
Thinking about how much people can be affected?, Maybe only me?; Is
there a workaround?; Is it only the format affected, or we need the
photoshop to do it?; Can be a regression with not visible implications
in calculation results?, etc.
We all must remember, devs are persons, not an entelechy to our
service. IMHO as we do, they appreciate the courtesy and good and
brief explanations. Because as must be, our priorities aren't their
priorities, we need to gain them for our bug.
If was possible to add a little help like the Os field have, to the
fields Severity and Priority, could help people understand better the
meaning of this fields.
Miguel Ángel
* Inglés - detectado
* Inglés
* Español
* Gallego
* Italiano
* Inglés
* Español
* Gallego
* Italiano
<javascript:void(0);>
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [email protected]
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/
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [email protected]
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/
