[Libreoffice-qa] minutes of the QA Call tomorrow, Tuesday 1300UTC

[Bjoern Michaelsen]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:50:44PM -0700, bfo wrote:
> Anonymous bug reports would be more or less useless, unless you are thinking
> about implementing crash platforms like https://crash-stats.mozilla.com
> where anonymous reports are processed and users can check current status of
> their reports along with assigned bug numbers (about:crashes in Firefox for
> instance). 

No, this should not be anonymous. Instead of login, we the would request an
contact email.


> Already some bug reports need heavy QA involvement (lots of time and e-mail
> judo skills) to be polished and prepared for interested developers.
> To be honest, with a current backlog,  a lot of them should be RESOLVED
> INVALIDated and not babysitted. 

I agree there.

> In some way DUPS are good (see 3.6 release) - properly DUPED bugs will
> become hot issues in an instant at Most Frequently Reported Bugs for
> LibreOffice page. 

I see the same in launchpad (which takes the number of dupes into account when
calculating bug heat). Still creating a bug just to be closed as dupe seems to
be a rather nasty overload instead of just cc'ing another user on the bug for
example.

> But please, no more alternative bug reports channels! I would like to see
> all bugs in Bugzilla and not have to search for bugs scattered through
> dozens of MLs or wiki pages. 

For people wrngling bugs nothing should change. You should be blissfully
ignorant of the bugs on the mailing lists. It is the job of the native teams to
communicate with the original reporter until they have a good, non-dupe,
english bugzilla bug, and the QA team then takes it from there. Consider all
the stuff before a kind of preprocessing -- done by a different set of people.
If they cant handle the incoming traffic, the native team have to solve that
issue themselves: QA will concern itself with whatever they manage to output
(which should be high quality and no more than medium quantity because of the
preprocessing.

>I recently have found that some users are already lost with BSA
>(https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/bug/) and Bugzilla
>(https://bugs.freedesktop.org). Just reviewed few incomplete, invalid,
>duplicate, with strange comments (a person is writing in the bug that he do
>not know what he has written and is writing it once again, differently, in the
>same, initial bug (?)). Seems people do not recognize what BSA is all about
>and by adding a bug there are creating Bugzilla account and adding a bug to
>Bugzilla itself (some do not understand that fact). I really would like to see
>BSA as build-in in bugs.freedesktop.org, than as a seperate product (best as
>this example template adapted -
>https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice&format=guided).
>Please remember that already LibreOffice as a product has a lot of bug
>trackers out there...

I need to sleep a few nights over that. Clearly the BSA is not perfect.

> 
> Bjoern Michaelsen wrote
> >  we could do a testdrive of this with those l10n communities that have
> >         enough manpower to handle the incoming native language reports:
> >         - portuguese/brazil
> >         - french
> >         - german 
> 
> Bug reports not in English are a problem - I think that getting people ready
> to translate the bug and chat with the reporter in his native language is a
> great idea. But only when a good summary comment is added to original bug
> report in Bugzilla. In English. I would CC such people asking for help now
> and then.

Yes, that is basically the idea: Get the people in the local teams to
communicate interactively with the reporter to chisel out all the details and
then have the bug being opened on bugzilla  only once it meets minimum
standards. Ideally the local teams not only help with the language barrier but
also catch common general bug filing mistakes (like not attaching a testdoc
when needed etc.)

Best,

Bjoern