On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 15:41 +0200, Joren DC wrote: > Hi Kohei, > > Kohei Yoshida schreef op 5/06/2014 15:06: > > So, to me personally, this practice of "witch-hunting" (or > > finger-pointing) really bogs me down, especially I receive such notice > > hundreds of times during a typical development cycle. > Well, that's at least not what I'm talking about right now. > (1) we (I) are (am) only talking about bugs we can track down to 1 > single commit or developer. Not a developer in general by component > (writer, calc, ...), which we do now to try to avoid as much as > possible. I'm not sure that there are that many QA'ers or reporters > which can track down to 1 single developer/commit? > I'm not a developer at all and just to provide me an idea: do you still > receive that much CC's on bugs compared to months/a year ago?
No because I turend off the notification. But occasional query for such bug reports turns up still quite a bit, and most of them are general Calc bugs and the reporters just add me, Eike and Markus as part of their routine bug triaging. > > (2) we discussed this yesterday on the QA-call too. Our conclusion was > to just kindly ping a developer in particular on IRC. > (https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2014/June_04#Topics_for_ESC.3F) > > If not I still am 'pro' an active approach and mail the particular > developer (in private) or put him/her in CC. > > (3) and as far my experience concerns... I already know which developers > are and are not open for a nice (not pointing, just asking) SINGLE > message. I think other core QA members do have such experience too. > > Since statistically every change one makes can and will cause *some* > > regressions in some obscure corners, this disadvantages those who make > > lots of changes, even when those changes are to fix other regressions > > and bugs. > True, but luckely not all regression cases are 'obscure' and border cases. It's pretty subjective what a "border" case is. For the bug reporter, the bug he/she reported is not a border case but a serious regression "that needs immediate fixing!" even though others don't see it that way. > > And some of these sometimes escalate to a (often repeated) demand of a > > revert of the commit, which is another blow especially when the change > > itself took weeks and weeks of careful coding to get conceived. One can > > be as careful as possible, and still (and almost always) break somethign > > somewhere. > Again: true. But we are not talking about: bug the particular developer > as much as possible, if he doesn't react/revert/fix spam his email and > IRC with threats to revert that commit ... I'm just throwing that in because it happens quite often, and is a growing concern for me. It's not targeted toward you personally. > I think we have to find the most constructive approach to get a > regression bug fixed, with respect to the situation (developer, commit > message, ...) and severity. Sure, but please keep in mind that we currently don't have enough developers to fix all regressions, and I dare say with the current development resources (and people's (un)willingness to fix bugs), we could probably only fix 5% or less of all bugs tagged regressions. And each regression fix will (yes I'm using the word "will" here on purpose) create at least 2 or 3 new ones, and the cycle only continues. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but that's how I see the situation. Kohei _______________________________________________ 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/
