On 20/11/2014 04:38, Robinson Tryon wrote:
....
Oh, certainly -- there a number of different groups of bugs on which
we can focus :-)
The 'preBibisect' bugs are always a great group to QA to tackle.
Currently we have 17 bugs that need sleuthing to figure out where in
the [OOo - LO 3.5] range they first appeared, and the OSX bibisect
repo is perfect for that purpose:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&list_id=495684&product=LibreOffice&query_format=advanced&version=PreBibisect
Aside from prioritizing bugs and putting them on MAB lists, is there
anything specific QA can do to highlight specific bugs for the devs?
Hi Robinson,
Just rethinking about all this, I realize I forgot the fact that it was
corresponding from QA point of view.
I mean, role of QA team is to confirm bugs and provide additional info
like bt, bibisect, etc. then role of dev team is to fix them.
So once a bug is confirmed with perhaps additional info, QA role is
finished (except perhaps retesting with a newer version if it hasn't
been touched during lots of time) and it's normal.
At first sight, since I was reading dev forum, I had thought that the
dev team should consider in priority to reduce UNCONFIRMED bugs.
Sorry for the noise.
Julien (simple contributor who juust tries to triage/ask or provide
additional info like bt and sometimes fix just easy bugs)
_______________________________________________
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/
