Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [tdf-discuss] Intervention


Le 14/07/2014 09:10, jean-christophe manciot a écrit :
Hello everyone,

I've been aware of the following situation for a long time in the "bug
report forum", but I thought it would improve over time. Since it
hasn't changed at all, I feel I have to blow the whistle on this.

As I have already written in a specific thread, here's the situation:

Could you point to that thread? I didn't see it on the QA list

1) Almost all bug reports "checkcers" don't even consider bug reports
when they can't get the original file(s);

I don't think they don't consider it, it's just very difficult to
reproduce a bug without the original condition of the document producing
it. I don't know what amount of triage you're doing, but most of the
time, as a triager having the original document let you look into it and
try to understand how the user meet it.

2) The same people mark bug reports as "Resolved - Invalid / Not A
Bug" even when they are unable to confirm or deny them for whatever
reason: no original file, different environment than the reporter, ...

could you give bug numbers please, so we (QA members) can have a look at
them.

3) It is not always possible for the bug reporters to hand over their
original file(s), for many different reasons that are beyond the scope
of this thread (confidentiality, legal concerns and so on...).

there is most of the time a way to remove the confidential data and if
the bug is serious enough to provide the doc directly to developers.

I believe it is always possible for the checkers to trust the
"reporters" and follow the "steps to reproduce" on their own material
****first****; if they can't do that, they probably should ask
themselves about their true motivations in this forum. 

I found what you say not fair for our QA members, they are doing their
best to triage hundreds or reports each week.
It is rare that
the reporters use tricky configurations with tricky files and so on.

Each way of work is different, each configuration may have their own
settings depending on the company or the work.

Moreover, in case these steps are unclear, the "reporters" are usually
available to clarify their point, otherwise they would not have spent
their time in the first place.*Only then* can some files be uploaded
to check some very uncommon settings or the report be marked as
"invalid" or whatever is the most appropriate.

No, it's exactly the contrary, the more the bug is complete and
reproducible with the document attached, the less the triager will spend
time to reproduce and detail the bug.

If the checkers continue to become more and more inflexible on this
"file issue", the risks are that some reporters will probably drop
their cases and their involvement in this forum; the related bugs will
remain within LO for a long time...

Again, can you please point to bug numbers where you see bugs wrongly
marked as invalid. The first work of a triager is to reproduce the bug
to confirm it. If he can't confirm or reproduce it, it's because there
is not enough information, or the specific document is missing. If his
configuration is different (most of the time he has Linux and the bug is
Windows or Mac), he requests for another member to triage the bug. Our
irc channel is full of these requests, even the QA list.

Is this what the checkers and LO community really need?

I'm ccing the QA list, please follow up on this list if you want to
discuss our triaging work.

Kind regards
Sophie


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


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.