On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Cor Nouws <[email protected]> wrote: >> + UNCONFIRMED under 500 > > One thing that may be handled too: when confirming also check if it > worked before (regression or not) and such. > (I regularly see issues where this isn't the case.) > > Maybe you have special work flow for this? I simply don't know cause I > mostly can't read the mails/list
Checking to see if something is a regression is always appreciated :-) I think the QA Team has grown this year both in size as well as in skill, and I'm really looking forward to what we can accomplish in the future. I think that once we feel comfortable being able to triage incoming bug reports within a couple of weeks, we'll be able to spend more time on each individual report, including regression checks. Just looking at some bug stats: 436 UNCONFIRMED of which 89 are enhancements Regarding when the UNCONFIRMED were filed: 45 in last 2 weeks 67 in the last month 350 in the last year 86 are older I know that some bugs are pretty tough to repro or triage. Instead of having them hide out in the UNCONFIRMED list, let's make sure that they're visible to the QA Team. Please tag these bug with 'needQAAdvice' in the Whiteboard: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Whiteboard/Advanced#needQAAdvice We've currently got only two bugs (legitimately) in that list. Tag bugs up, and we'll take a look! Thanks, --R -- 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/
