[Libreoffice-qa] daily bibisect

[dk122 at torfree.net]

Just for convenience, my changes so far today are
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73158&oldid=73085>.
They go beyond the changes I mention in-line.

Quoting "Joel Madero" <jmadero.dev at gmail.com>:

> On 07/28/2013 12:00 PM, libreoffice-qa-request at lists.freedesktop.org wrote:
>> I have added some instructions to deal with tags latest and oldest in
>> the daily bibisect repo
>> <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73085&oldid=73084>.
>> Will you be good enough to look over the changes?
>>
>> Of course, if the repo came with these tags laready in place, that
>> whole section of the page could go away.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Terry.
> I'll take a look - we've been talking quite a bit about cleaning  
> this page and I see that you're adding and cleaning it up. Was  
> wondering if you'd be willing (if not let me know and I'll take a  
> stab at it) to do a couple things to the page.

I will be glad to continue hacking at the page.
>
> 1. Can you add a note that says if the bibisect shows the bug the  
> entire time (ie. it's prebibisect) to mark the version as 3.5beta0  
> in FDO - this is the best we can do currently - and add  
> "prebibisect" to whiteboard.
>
Done:  
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73158&oldid=73157>.

> 2. Rearrange the page just a bit - I think logically
> a) Intro
> b) Limitations
> c) Download stuff
> d) how to bibisect (currently in a different location)
> e) Bug that need bibisected
> f) troubleshooting
>

Done:  
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73146&oldid=73144>
>
> I think only one change there but it makes more sense intrinsically to me.
>
> 3. Another minor thing that I see is in "versions" it says  
> bibisect40bugs for bugs that need bibisecting - as far as I know  
> every bug that needs bibisected is "bibisectrequest" - I haven't  
> seen the 4.0 and 4.0+ (daily) differentiated - perhaps I missed  
> something though :)
>

BZ shows no bugs with “bibisect40” in either the Whiteboard or
Keywords.  I changed it:
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=QA%2FHowToBibisect&diff=73155&oldid=73151>

I remember from June that the linked bugzilla queries use a baffling
veriety of selection criteria.  Do you have an idea about whether
there is a reason for this variety?  Or is it something that “just
happened”?

>
> Thanks Terry for tackling this how to wiki - it has a lot going on  
> there so the cleaner and simpler we make it the better.
>

Hah!  We haven't even started on the witheboard statuses and
prescribed comments for reporting the results.  The page already has a
lot of instructions conditioned by the tester's choice of bibisect
download.  I only foresee that getting worse: there are three bibisect
versions, and each can be unhelpful when the regression is off either
end.  (Yes, a regression newer than the 40+ version is plausible.  I
went weeks without updating my download after an attempted update hung
for days showing an ETA of a hundred odd days.)  Among the unseccssful
cases, only the determination that a regression is older than the OVA
or 40 repositories marks the end of the search.  How much should we
try to track in the whiteboard status?

> If you're busy or just don't want to do it just let me know - I  
> didn't want to be editing over you :)

I am happy to continue.  Knowing that someone is checking my work
frees me to make bigger changes.

Thanks,
Terry,