[Libreoffice-qa] Send Feedback...and BSA ideas
libreoffice at ertai.nl
Fri Jul 19 14:51:18 PDT 2013
> Hi All,
> My little contribution.
> I think we are going the wrong way totally.
> When the dev-list found gerrit it wasn't quite what they wanted. But
> they took it, tweaked it and are now using it, with great success
> (afaik). And here we are trying to create something new that stands
> between what we have as bugzilla and the ask-site. Why are we trying
> to take this hughe detour to get what we want?
> I think we need _really need_ our own bugzilla so we can tweak that
> install that it suits us better. Then we can make the bugs less
> complex and use usefull subcomponents. But then we can also install
> plugins we think are usefull. Tweaking bugzilla then so it comes
> really close with what we need is better then. Yes this is a road that
> needs time invested. But that is also needed for the other road.
> Just my €0,02
> Rob Snelders
> On 16-07-13 00:33, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:59:37PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
>>> I did that and I was told to stop.
>>> One big problem with Ask admins reporting a bug for a user is that the
>>> reporter is....the Ask admin. Do you run OSX 10.7? Do you run Windows
>>> Vista? I don't, so when a dev comes back and asks me for repro steps,
>>> I have to shrug and say "Go talk to user XYZ on the Ask site".... and
>>> as you said, the devs don't use the Ask site!
>> Yeah, its probably best to suggest users to file a bug and offer to
>> help them
>> along on #libreoffice-qa once the bug is triaged roughly. I dont
>> think we need
>> to bother with bugs as long as those are obviously not welltriaged.
>>> Another problem is that if they haven't provided enough information,
>>> we can't tag the question as "NEEDINFO" and let the Ask system pester
>>> them for more information (although this would be a *great*
>>> improvement that I'd like to see!)
>> THB, I did something similar with a question recently: Asked a long idle
>> incomplete question if there is an update on the missing info and
>> then closed
>> it as "outdated" a few days later as there was no reply.
>>> Many/most new users on the Ask site do not read old questions. Of the
>>> small number that do, most of them either know how to file a bug or
>>> learn very quickly. So I don't think that me filing bugs for people
>>> will have much value in leading by example (but I could be wrong...).
>> Only file bugs for others when you can reproduce the bug. Otherwise
>> guide them
>> through filing their bug themselves. This also makes the motivation
>> for a
>> reproduction scenario clear to the other guy.
>>>> So: Give the people a smooth migration path towards bugzilla and
>>>> allow them to
>>>> test the waters on askbot, instead of a migration scenario that
>>>> requires a
>>>> sleep all-in learning curve, which will make a lot of them just
>>>> turn away.
>>> It's a novel idea, having people start on Askbot and then having them
>>> learn how to use the bugtracker later, and it's not something I'm
>>> entirely opposed to, but it's a very drastic change to how we've been
>>> using FDO and the Ask site up until now.
>> Note that experienced users will should be encouraged to stay with
>> fdo (and
>> will likely do so all by themselves). So: If you now what bugzilla
>> is, go with
>> it, otherwise better stay with askbot. If you have "(experienced users:
>> bugzilla)" behind on the feedback page, you can hopefully divide the
>> stream at
>> that point already successfull as those saying "oh, I know bugzilla"
>> will go
>> for it and those who do not will evade "(experienced users:
More information about the Libreoffice-qa