[Libreoffice-qa] Triage Project Update

Joel Madero jmadero.dev at gmail.com
Fri Sep 7 09:00:26 PDT 2012

Hi Nino,

That's the beauty of our project, everyone's opinion is respected :) I'll
try to avoid adding any work to website team and see what method works best
to get these triaged and organized best. As of now, google doc + fdo seems
to be doing the trick :) Ultimately might just make a macro to auto sort
them once every other week to keep the google doc updated until the
"project" is done (ie. getting all bugs >30 days old triaged so we can try
to stick with a goal of triaging withing 30 days for new bugs). Thanks for
all the valuable input.

Best Regards,

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Nino Novak <nn.libo at kflog.org> wrote:

> Am 04.09.2012 23:05 schrieb Joel Madero:
> > I agree that FDO has some benefits but the limitation is really that
> each user
> > is needed to query every time,  the possibility of overlap is great, and
> no one
> > is really responsible for an individual bug until the query is made and
> someone
> > takes the time to look into it. I'm not sure if others would agree but
> it seems
> > like having a "group" of 50 or so and being able to just do those at your
> > convenience makes people more likely to help and feel like their is an
> end in
> > sight for "their portion". This is vs. just seeing a never ending list
> from FDO
> > or even having to "teach" new users (or even not new users) exactly what
> to
> > search for every time with FDO.
> As for me (a rather unexperienced QA Newbie), I've chosen a somewhat
>  different
> approach: I've first created two custom searches,
> 1) all recent bugs (reported within the last two days) for curiosity (just
> to
> see what people report recently)
> 2) all UNCONFIRMED bugs from the last 14 days
> From query 2 I picked a couple of bugs every couple of days to
> reproduce/confirm/assign/close/whatever seemed appropriate.
> That's just to show a slightly different approach, which is rather simple
> and
> can be handled perfectly within bugzilla itself without any external tool.
> Ok, the only problem was, that when a person starts reproducing a bug, it
> can
> happen, that another triager just starts with the very same bug at the same
> time. So some kind of lock signal was the only missing thing to prevent
> duplication of work. However, this situation did not happen a single time
> during
> my self-chosen "BugReviewWeek" ;-)
> Another advantage: By the above process nobody (virtually) "blocks" 50
> bugs for
> a longer time period. Bugzilla queries are very adequate at every time, as
> all
> works with live data.
> > Similar to how developers assign themselves bugs and then can just go
> look at
> > their own bugs ("My Bugs") it would be nice to have this ability for QA
> triagers
> > but have it somewhat automated since it's just triaging, not
> programming. In the
> > long run (once we're through the back log of 650+ that are really old),
> it would
> > be amazing if we had a team of QA staff that signed up to have bugs "auto
> > assigned" to them for triaging.
> We have the libreoffice-bugs at fdo mailing list, which contains (nearly?)
> every
> new bug. Could we use it somehow for this purpose? E.g. by replying to a
> bug or
> forwarding it to the qa list or some such? (Just thoughts, nothing
> concrete)
>  What I imagine:
> >
> > QA triagers "sign up" for components they are willing to triage and
> their "max"
> > load
> > New bug is reported, if the bug has a component listed the bug gets "auto
> > assigned" for triaging purposes according to some rule(s)
> Personally, I prefer not to sign up for a special component but to pick a
> recent
> bug which kind of "attracts" me spontanously. But there might be other
> opinions/preferences/arguments/approaches.
> > For now the google docs works, FDO does not as it is now but I'll
> discuss this
> > further with Bjoern, Petr & Rainer to see if we can come up with
> something more
> > functional than the chaos that is FDO :) Or maybe I'm just not familiar
> enough
> > with FDO to really feel comfortable myself with it, this is more likely
> than not
> > true :)
> :-)
> I like your initiative. Please don't feel discouraged by my comments, I
> just
> wanted to add a slightly different view. If people like your approach,
> that's
> great! It does not contradict to mine (IMHO), as it's rather obvious if a
> bug
> has been triaged or not. So we can all work together towards our common
> goal.
> Regards,
> Nino
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/attachments/20120907/618971fb/attachment.html>

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list