On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Aleksandr P <[email protected]> wrote: > 2014-10-16 23:00 GMT+04:00 bfoman <[email protected]>: >> 1) If they see the bug has gone they should mark as WORKSFORME >> 2) if bug persist they should drop a note and leave status UNCHANGED >> 3) if nobody answers we do nothing and leave status UNCHANGED > > I think we should have an easy way to distinguish the second and the > third situation. Not only bugreporters but QA-team members and other > people would want to recheck old bugs. It could be a good task for new > contributors, because it would help to find duplicates in future.
I think the best way for us to distinguish cases 2 & 3 is to store reproducibility with a particular version of LibreOffice as tuples of information, so it can be queried. (It would also be helpful to know if a particular CONFIRMED or NOREPRO result comes from the Original Reporter, or from someone else). We don't have a good way right now to capture or display repro test results as structured data, but I've got some good ideas about how we might implement that in the future. For the time being, *judicious* pinging of users (asking them to retest against a more modern version) seems fine to me :-) -- Robinson Tryon QA Engineer - The Document Foundation LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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/
