[Libreoffice-qa] Fwd: [tdf-announce] The Document Foundation announces LibreOffice 3.6 with a wealth of new features and improvements

bfo bfo.bugmail at spamgourmet.com
Fri Aug 10 08:27:52 PDT 2012

Jochen wrote
> IMHO has bfo some right. But:
> 1) "bankruptcy of this system" is a little bit exaggerated.
Not at all. After reviewing >400 bugs (and counting) I could double 3.5MAB
numbers in an instant. 
The main problem is that MAB is a battlefield for users without QA control
and devs IMHO are in other parts of the LO world (and nobody, I say nobody
will ever browse >300 comments bug). Just see 3.5MAB stats in ESC minutes -
open bugs vs fixed ratio is unfortunately more or less constant.
The same with regressions. 67 in Writer? 177 in whole package? Regressions!
Bugs that irritate users most, because they want to use advertised nice new
features but they are stuck with old version for good. Does the project do
not respect users? One can see it that way... And all that with
double/triple code reviews. A joke!
Other problem is bugs backlog. >1000 of UNCONFIRMED or NEEDINFO, >2500 NEW
bugs! With a rate of ~6 bugs closed daily it is not very encouraging (please
remember that some of them are WORKSFORME, INVALID or DUPLICATE bugs). QA
should push red button instantly.
Luckily there are people who want to triage bugs (including myself). But
with those numbers it is a daunting task. Do not forget that after triage we
need a lot of people who want to fix them. 
And to get things worse we are talking here about bugs.freedesktop.org only!
There are other Bugzillas where LO bugs are reported (including AOO sister
code). Herculean effort is needed at once to get this straight.
As you can see there are major topics to discuss urgently. I hope together
we can change this situation.
And yes, bugs.freedesktop.org Product:LibreOffice is in a state of
bankruptcy... Numbers do not lie

Jochen wrote
> 2) Whinging and grouching will not help
>> We need a strategy with a positive, encouraging motto for the developers.
Well, somebody has to start it. I observe this project for few months and I
think, that QA voice is weak. I am perplexed reading "All good", "No
problems" in ESC QA section and then read regression or MAB stats. Also
while triaging bugs, see a few 123crash bugs a week or such "discoveries" as
bug 47466. I will whinge and grouch even more - LO is most crashy
application I ever touched in my life. This has to change. QA has to step
in. No more changing of splash screens (a lot of problems with that and
still bottom text is cutted) or rewriting filters just to introduce 12
regressions. It has to stop. Really. Now.
Crashkill, regressionkill, testing before commiting, better code reviews.
Insist that code rewrite planned for 4.0 is absurd, when there are dozens of
instant crashes in the codebase. Unfortunately devs do not like to fix bugs.
That is why I think a strategy should be to nominate bugs for every
maintenance release. 10 bugs per release? Ask the people - please, fix those
bugs first and then innovate. I can't see that on daily basis, only when
some disaster happens like recent regressions or problems with Windows
builds or a real real real hard blocker.

On the other way - paid support as a first answer for bug fixing is a
deadend. Corporate users can count their assets. They are tempted by "free"
software and they expect it just works (interoperates with their customers).
When they hear, that paid support is suggested, they start to count very
fast. What is better - pay every year 10/50/100$ per user for a support or
buy (or lease) other software and it just works with everyone/everything? Or
maybe they do not need a software at all with cloud computing here, there
and everywhere? It is very tricky situation for software in general...

That is all for today. Hope to see some ideas in ESC minutes some day and
more QA volunteers. 
Best regards.

View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Fwd-tdf-announce-The-Document-Foundation-announces-LibreOffice-3-6-with-a-wealth-of-ns-tp4000177p4000474.html
Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list