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

Petr Mladek pmladek at suse.cz
Mon Mar 4 01:06:13 PST 2013

Joel Madero píše v Pá 01. 03. 2013 v 09:03 -0800:
>         I would not enforce this but I would make it optional. By
>         other words, I
>         would take inspiration from the developers side where the
>         "random" names
>         in assigned fields just created false feeling that the
>         developer was
>         going to work on the bug soon.
>         I would do it the following way:
>         1. If a triager is heavily interested into particular bug,
>         have it under
>            control, wants to provide more information when needed, it
>         would be
>            great to put the name into the "QA Contact".
> My only concern is that if we have a QA Contact name there - we can be
> relatively sure that the bug was prioritized which, as we move
> forward, we're trying to clean up priorities so that we can move away
> from all these random lists that we have. Without that info, we'd need
> to consider an alternative to that issue (maybe whiteboard status
> "Prioritized")

It is an interesting idea but I would not mix these two things. I
personally think that we want the prioritization but I am not convinced
that "QA contact" would work. Enforcing "QA contact" might cause
troubles as mentioned in the previous mail. So, mixing these two things
together might cause troubles as well :-)

You are right that making sure that the priority and severity is
reasonable is not easy. Adding whiteboard flag is one solution but it is
a bit painful, so I would prefer to avoid it in the long term. We might
use it only for old bugs. Well, we need to propagate the prioritization
rules first to make most triagers aware of them and actually agreed on

Best Regards,

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list