Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Steve, *,

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Steve Edmonds
<> wrote:
How was the session on triage.

"Failure" basically - (or also bad timing, as 3.4beta has not been
available, and when it was, it turned out that it wasn't running /
there were big problems installing it, so people stayed away)

But that doesn't mean of course that it was in vain, just means that
it can only get better next time :-)

(and this time there were less than 20 unconfirmed bugs anyway, so it
doesn't hurt much to not have lots of/any participants)

I suggest a latest working release
instead of a beta, I cannot afford my LO not to work as I need it every
day and are unsure if I can install a beta and a release copy at the
same time. I do not want to take the risk.

Yes, I agree - fur the (expanded) purpose of verifying whether
resolved fixed issues are actually working in the release, there
should be a RC at least (or a version that can be installed alongside
the stable version without "dirty tricks".

But of course it is always hard to tell why people did not show up...

For the next time, we must make sure that all people do know about it.
I'm not sure whether people did read the announcements/were aware of
it, so next time we should put a big note on the homepage and on the
wiki, then this aspect is out of the question.

Or maybe people did join, waited a little and then left again without
writing a word, because the channel itself was silent. So maybe a
dedicated people being "rolemodels" might help. Or maybe give an
IRC-Talk as introduction. (There were quite a few in the project, that I enjoyed very much, but unfortunately
this all died when the person driving it (making a schedule, asking
people to give a talk...) "vanished")

I have been confirming some bugs, but the process is not clear.

So lets start with you - why haven't you been around on IRC? (Or if
you were around: why didn't you ask on IRC to be precise)

The wiki
page says to add a comment
to state confirmed. There is no way to search for unconfirmed.

Oh, there is - and I don't remember seeing a question on the IRC
channel regarding this.

On the (advanced) Search choose LibreOffice as product, and
"unconfirmed" as status, leave everything else blank (unless you want
to restrict the search further)

status can not be changed to unconfirmed or confirmed or VERIFIED. The
keywords cannot be set CONFIRMED. [...]

Ah, there's the problem - you need to use the advanced search form.

Those kind of questions would be welcome in a QA-session on IRC

Also, in the message you did fullquote, there is a link already that
shows the unconfirmed issues only:

On 11/03/11 22:43, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:

I want to push interest in bug confirming.
Currently we have lots of bugs with status UNOCNFORMED, waiting for


You can use that link of course as well - that is exactly what you get
when you just select "LibreOffice" as product and UNCONFIRMED as
status and leave everything else untouched.


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.