Hi, just to quickly expand on that:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 02:35:43PM +0200, Sophie wrote: > > I believe it is always possible for the checkers to trust the > > "reporters" and follow the "steps to reproduce" on their own material > > ****first****; if they can't do that, they probably should ask > > themselves about their true motivations in this forum. > > I found what you say not fair for our QA members, they are doing their > best to triage hundreds or reports each week. > It is rare that > > the reporters use tricky configurations with tricky files and so on. > > Each way of work is different, each configuration may have their own > settings depending on the company or the work. Pragmatically, if the bug is not reproducable by a QA triager (that is: someone else than the reporter), it will also not be reproducable by a developer. Without that, the bug cant be fixed really (for a fix also cannot be verified). A bug report that is not fixable is by itself unfortunately not of much value to the project. As such, we need the reporter to find a way to create a confirmed reproduction scenario. In fact, this is the small contribution (by the reporter) that helps enabling a much bigger contribution (the fix, done by a developer). With development resource being limited (they always are), they will -- all other things being equal -- naturally and effectively be used on the most well-triaged issues. Best, Bjoern _______________________________________________ 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/
