On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Rainer Bielefeld <[email protected]> wrote: > > not good! We will not create complicated wrong rules for things what are > easy to understand.
My "rule" was 1 short sentence long. Compared to the current morass of QA documentation, I don't think it's appropriate to call that "complicated." > And whether a Version still is useful for indicating > where in the history a (newly reported) bug appeared has nothing to do with > the date of the last build. So already the subject of this thread is > misleading for this issue. Well, now we're talking about a slightly different issue. I agree that it's important to know when a bug first appeared in our builds, but that's a QA/triage step, not necessarily something that we need to front-load to our users. > LibO-Bugzilla admins will switch old Versions to "inactive" when they see > that no more (or very few) bugs appear newly in BZ with that version. That's > the only indicator that counts, that already is in progress, no reason for > concerns. I think that there are actually two separate issues here: 1) What versions of LO are users *actively* using and against which we are seeing bugs reported? 2) What is the earliest version of LO in which we reproduce a bug? > > It seems that 3.4 will reach a status what sill allow to switch inactive the > non-release versions (see statistics for last half year [1]) soon. Of the 4 bugs you list for 3.4, 1 was a Bugzilla test by Joel (irrelevant) 1 was an AOO bug (!) mistakenly reported in our bugtracker (also irrelevant) 1 was reported against 4.0, and traced back to 3.4.5 by Rainer (so not reported against 3.4) 1 was reported by a LO developer with 60+ commits to his name (i.e. largely pre-triaged) tl;dr: In the last 6 months no ordinary users have reported a bug against 3.4. Here's a fun Question: Does anyone know off the top of their head how many 3.4.x versions we have listed in FDO? I just counted, and it's a whopping 22. All for a release that we consider EOL'd over a year ago! To quote Sweet Georgia Brown, "Ain't nobody got time for that!" > > I would appreciate a stop of this rather useless discussion. Question: Is the current process documented anywhere? Can we improve the bugtracker? If no, then why ask us to stop the discussion? If we can't come to consensus about de-listing the versions from FDO, how about we at least remove them from the BSA? That way our primary interface for end-users would be de-cluttered (reduce 22 entries to 1 for 3.4, 14 down to 1 for 3.3, etc..), and we'd still have all 4 glorious 3.3.0 RC's listed in Bugzilla. On a related note, Joel just added a new item for our next meeting regarding our policy on bibisect and updating version #'s. I think that it it's very instructive to know when a bug was introduced into the code, however bibisect gives us a finer granularity than even our version picker can provide. In that vein, I wonder if our use of the version picker is a little myopic -- perhaps there's a better way for us to keep track of which particular builds are affected by a particular bug, especially as a bug might appear in one build, disappear in a subsequent build, and reappear later still[1]. Cheers, --R [1] See Joel's notes: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2013/May_3#NEW_ITEM:_Clarify_Bibisect_.2B_Version_.23_.28Joel.29 _______________________________________________ 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/
