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

dE . de.techno at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 22:28:41 PDT 2012

On 04/23/12 23:51, MiguelAngel wrote:
> 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?.

No, I came to the conclusion via market statistics. If I want to see a 
complex doc(x), xls(x), ppt(x) etc... I use google docs... I've no 
issues, and for exports I use PDF.

So this issue generally matters the most.

> 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);>
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: Libreoffice-qa at lists.freedesktop.org
> 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/

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list