Sounds great - so let's try to come up with a concrete plan that everyone (or most) sign off on and then just do a thumbs up or down vote. Let's try to not get too picky about the details.
@Tommy - you mind giving a proposed consistent plan of attack? If you want me to briefly write something up let me know. Best, Joel On 10/17/2014 01:24 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote: > 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 :-) > > _______________________________________________ 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/
