[Libreoffice-qa] Cleaning bug list

Joel Madero jmadero.dev at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 08:08:29 PDT 2012

Thanks for the advice. I thought I had included the qa list, my mistake. As
for the length, I agree and I almost didn't include it but that was an
email in response to mine so I felt a bit obligated to respond despite the

I had another side question, the response to the thread was made here:

I never got an email about the response, instead it was only part of the
digest. Is this the norm because the response was made through nabble? I
was just lucky that I read the digest and saw that there was a response,
otherwise that person would have never heard back from me about all of his

Thanks again for the feedback, I think this topic is about exhausted at
least for now. I'll get something up on the site where you suggested as
well as a little blurb about it unless Rainer suggests otherwise.


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Petr Mladek <pmladek at suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi Joel,
> Joel Madero píše v Út 19. 06. 2012 v 13:36 -0700:
> > I moved this to a new thread because the subject here didn't really
> > accurately portray the direction of the conversation
> The mail includes many good questions and proposals that might move us
> forward. I'll try to answer it later this week.
> Just a hint. In the future, I suggest to do NOT solve too many problems
> in one mail. Too long mails are discouraging. They are hard to read
> after few replies. I write such mails from time to time as well and I am
> always told that they are hard to handle ;-)
> In addition, I suggest to use formatting using spaces and tabs. Some
> people use text-only mail clients (pine) and they do not see the bold
> text :-)
> Finally, we need to add libreoffice-qa mailing list into CC for replies
> to the other mail. It is affecting the QA job.
> >  but I wanted to say I have uploaded the latest flowchard:
> >
> >
> >
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/0/06/Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg
> >
> >
> > I wasn't sure how or if I needed a wiki page or if I should just link
> > to the jpg in the Useful Links section of the Bug Triage wiki page.
> > Any thoughts? If you could respond on the other thread (more accurate
> > subject) that would be great, if not here is fine. Thanks all for the
> > input, I think that this is at least a decent start.
> I would add it instead of
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Severity
> and add extra step for this into the BugTriage process.
> I hope that Rainer is not against.
> Thanks for the nice flowchart and working on triaging the bugs.
> Best Regards,
> Petr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/attachments/20120620/5fbb3b67/attachment.html>

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list