[Libreoffice-qa] Office XP/2003, 2007/2010 formats import/export -- most used feature.

[MiguelAngel]

El 23/04/12 17:17, Michael Meeks escribió:
> Hi there,
>
> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 19:04 +0530, dE . wrote:
>> The MAB has been chaotic lately... actually it turned out that I didn't
>> get a lot of mails and missed out a lot of comments following the LONG
>> discussion in the bug... so sorry about that, I noticed them now.
>
> 	:-)
>
>> What I've been trying to add to MAB are broken import/export
>> features/regressions of Office XP/2003, 2007/2010 formats.
>
> 	While I disagree with your analysis of the use of ODF, I agree that
> fixing interoperability bugs is important. Having said that, I'd really
> like to keep the number of most annoying bugs really low.
>
>> These bugs are more critical than a few crashes and I estimate there're
>> ~200 bugs in LO's bugzilla alone.
>
> 	If there are more than about 20 open MAB (currently there are ~70) it
> becomes extremely easy to miss the screamingly urgent bugs that this was
> setup to track. If you add another 200 there, no-one wins and we just
> destroy this valuable place to look for "real blockers" :-)
>
> 	There is some sort of near-zero-sum-game here, and hiding the signal in
> a ton of noise is not a good idea. Worse - without developer input, what
> looks to you like a simple "inter-operability bug" may in fact be a
> substantial feature that needs a man month to implement, so serious care
> is needed with these.
>
> 	Having said that, having a keyword for inter-operability problems, that
> we track the queries of, and try to increase interest in could be rather
> good. IIRC we had an interop whiteboard status at some stage ? and we
> could track that.
>
> 	As a final thought - playing with the 'Most Annoying Bugs' is really
> the pinacle of the QA effort :-) I'd suggest that for each person adding
> or removing a bug from there, they also should do a handful of the more
> vanilla work: checking and moving from UNCONFIRMED to a suitable state
> eg. :-)
>
> 	Just my 2 cents,
>
> 		Michael.
>

+1 Michael.

Why we all think that bugs more interesting for us, must be the most 
important for project?. Every time, we need to remember that we aren't 
the bellybutton of world?.

Why we don't rethink twice in community/project terms, prior to set the 
importance level to the bug?.

Thinking about how much people can be affected?, Maybe only me?; Is 
there a workaround?; Is it only the format affected, or we need the 
photoshop to do it?; Can be a regression with not visible implications 
in calculation results?, etc.

We all must remember, devs are persons, not an entelechy to our service. 
IMHO as we do, they appreciate the courtesy and good and brief 
explanations. Because as must be, our priorities aren't their 
priorities, we need to gain them for our bug.

If was possible to add a little help like the Os field have, to the 
fields Severity and Priority, could help people understand better the 
meaning of this fields.

Miguel Ángel

  * Inglés - detectado
  * Inglés
  * Español
  * Gallego
  * Italiano

  * Inglés
  * Español
  * Gallego
  * Italiano

  <javascript:void(0);>