[Libreoffice-qa] New Bugzilla Version Picker items – 2

Petr Mladek pmladek at suse.cz
Thu Jun 14 07:40:19 PDT 2012

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 11:10 +0200, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> Petr Mladek schrieb:
> >>>> [Second schema]
> >>>>> for alphas
> >>>>> for betas
> >>>>> for RC (example) and/or release
> >>>>> for RC (example) and/or release
> >>>>> for release(example)

> Hi Petr,
> this Idea should not exclude additional information, of course we should 
> include tha "Alpha" and "Beta" Text. But I wanted to have all 
> information in the Version number to avoid problems with different sort 
> handling (you saw the strange Bugzilla sorting).
> I think we should not use different separators, you never know whether 
> some system (Wiki, OpenHatch, Whatever) might have it's own ideas what 
> alphabetical sort order might be.
> Complete Version concerning this suggestion would be:
> Help / About            Bugzilla Picker
> ------------------------------------------
>      rc
>      rc
>      release
> Advantage of that system is that it is only an expansion of the existing 
> one (RC1 becomes
> Alternative System, not compatible with current one
> Help / About            Bugzilla Picker         Info
> --------------------------------------------------------
>                      rc
>                      rc
>                      release
>                      rc

Ah, I do not like much these schemes because:

	+ the number is too long and thus harder to parse and memorize
	+ it duplicates the information about alpha/beta ordering;
           you have  01alpha1 (1 is there twice), 02alpha2 (2 is there
	+ I have never seen this anywhere else. I would prefer to use
          something that people are used to

Why about the following scheme?

Help / About            Bugzilla Picker         Info
------------------------------------------------------                          rc                        rc

It is actually your proposal, so I hope that it works for you.
I consider it as the best compromise from what I have seen.

> Unfortunately I see no way to shorten this more than "Alternative 
> System" shoes, except we accept M. Stahl's suggestion what counts a 
> 3.7.0 as some kind of beta ;-)
> For the Bugzilla Picers I only want 1 Master for 3.6, one for 3.7, ...
> Also for the Branch I only want 1 Picker Version, may be
> Master
> or
> Daily (Or Branch or ...)

I see, you are talking about daily builds. If we agree on the above
scheme, we could have:

Help / About 		Bugzilla Picker         Info 
------------------------------------------------------         daily         daily         daily           daily           daily                        rc                        rc                        rc/final

> A remaining problem is Markus' script adding Target info. Before 
> 3.6.0aloha it it contained information due to 
> <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Whiteboard>.

I am sure that the script will be solvable. IMHO, the new proposal make
it easier than the current 3.X-1.98.Y and 3.X-1.99.Y approach.

> Currently the Idea is to include alpha, beta rc as separate target info 
> versions, goal is to encourage testers to verify fixes and to give them 
> better info where the fix will be integrated. IMHO we should reduce 
> different wordings for the Versions as much as possible, but that 
> strings are rather long.

IMHO, the above proposal is well readable. If it is still to long, we
could use "aX" instead of "alphaX" and "bX" instead of "betaX". Well, I
somehow prefer the whole word.

> Can we try to get a solution until weekend?

I am sorry for the long delay between replays. I am not effective in
handling too many mailing list. I usually replay faster for mails where
I am in CC. Such mails are sorted into the the top-priority-mails

Best Regards,

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list