[Libreoffice-qa] Should we use the "QA Contact" field?

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi,


2013/2/26 Joel Madero <jmadero.dev at gmail.com>

> Hm I have mixed feelings about these requirements.
>

​Me too...



> I think that what it says is "this person prioritized the bug and did
> initial testing". Personally if you say that any person who adds their name
> to there has become indefinitely responsible for a vast number of tasks
> including but not limited to bt and bibisecting, it will scare away
> valuable QA people.
>

​+1 Someone without Linux can't do bisect (up to now)


>
> I think that the first QA person who changes the status should add their
> name. If additional things are requested that QA person will either:
>
> 1) Do the additional testing themselves
>
> 2) Find someone else to do it
>

3) Thinks that his testing is enough ;)

>
> One good thing about this method is if we see QA members names there we
> can assume (mostly logically) that prioritizing was done and thus in the
> long run we can abandon all the lists we have and just go by the
> prioritization of the bug which would be amazing.
>

+1 if we introduce a "take" for QA. It's ... annoying to do that manually
:)

>
> Thoughts?
>
> Joel
>
> --
> *Joel Madero*
> LibreOffice QA Volunteer
> jmadero.dev at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: Libreoffice-qa at lists.freedesktop.org
> Change settings:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/


Yours,

Florian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/attachments/20130301/1b91fdfb/attachment-0001.html>