On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:30:52 +0200, Joel Madero <[email protected]>
wrote:
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
as said before, a first test could be to ping just UNCONFIRMED bugs with
latest post older than 1 year.
the numbers should not be so high, so I don't expect excessive spam.
then let see what's the feedback ratio of this.
if the test look positive we could then move to NEW bugs with latest post
older than 1 year, which I expect to be in an higher number. probably
feedback will be higher since NEW bugs have more people on CC in respect
to UNCONFIRMED bugs
think about the text of the retest ping message. an english native speaker
should assess if it's correct. I came up with:
"Dear users, this bug report has shown no new comments in the last year.
Newer LibO releases with hundred of bugifixes and new features have been
releases meanwhile, so please retest with current LibO release (4.3.2.2)
and give feedback of the actual status of the bug. If bug is gone set
status to RESOLVED WORKSFORME. If bug is still present leave status
UNCHANGED and drop a new comment telling the LibO version and O/S where
you retested and reproduce it"
Bjoern Michaelsen suggested to add this few lines too:
"Regardless of what you find in newer versions, the VERSION fields should
stay
at the _first_ version that showed the buggy behaviour."
_______________________________________________
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/
