[Libreoffice-qa] Bug Triage Process Update

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Hi Petr,

thank you for starting this cleanup. I am just preparing some other 
activities, but unfortunately I currently have not much time.

>  I think that the page is slightly outdated.

Yes, it is!

>
> It looked like the step 3 from the Bug Triage process.

More or less. But explications on that page and others are too 
"businesslike". We should show interested new users that it's really 
simple and no special skills (except some carefulness) are required. But 
currently BugTriage Page is ok, we should create a more elaborated and 
inviting introduction on a different page.

> Do we really want to triage bugs in the state NEW or ASSIGNED?

No, that's nonsense, of course. A first draft showing what kind of bugs 
need Review you find here:
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/1/1b/BugsNeedingReview.svg>

more detailed explication and matching query coming soon.

Until End of week I will star (no, I hope that I will be able to start) 
Some Wiki-Pages:

- User-QA (Who we are, what we do)
  - How we get a report "ready for Developers needs"
  - how everybody can contribute
   - bug reporting
   - bug triage

> 3. Query last two days:

Of course it's also interesting to see the latest activities, but of 
course all bugs without review deserve attention

> Do we still need to put CONFIRMED to the Whiteboard?
>
> IMHO, the bug is confirmed when the status is not UNCONFIRMED.

No, we should change that, please see a.m. Query picture draft. We have 
approximately 2000 old NEW bugs where the main differentiation between 
those who need review and those what do not. Changing proceeding will 
need some preparation

> 5. NEEDINFO handling:

Yes, Currently I also think we should use the status for incomplete bug 
reports, where info is required from reporter. The key word can be used 
for other needs. But also here we have lots of bugs with key word 
Needinfo, and a change is simple, but causes lots and lots of Mails, so 
I am thinking about a slow "phasing out". But at least for me that's not 
an important search criterion, we can switch immediately


> I am not sure if the is a good idea to assign all bugs to the few people
> on the http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/FindTheExpert page.

That's something developers have to handle. As long as nobody else is 
known bugs will be assigned to those few people. Currently I see that 
working very well for Calc with Kohei and Markus, they get managed that 
problem "somehow". But for futere may be Component related mailing lists 
as "pre-assignees" may be a better solution (your suggestion 1). 
Develpers busy in that area can subscribe "their" lists to be up to date 
concerning bugs that passed QA review. Your suggestion 1 seems to be the 
most clear and simple soulution.


Best regards

Rainer