[Libreoffice-qa] ping to retest old bugs

[Florian Reisinger]

Hi,
There are enough bugs foxes in Fresh. I would like to explain it to them (Fresh/Stable/Master) and give them the choice. Ala "if you choose master more bugs can be fixed, but terribly things can happen". "Stable is our most stable version. Fresh and master could have more bugs fixed, but could have other bugs"

Am 17. Oktober 2014 06:26:48 MESZ, schrieb Joel Madero <jmadero.dev at gmail.com>:
>I'm a fan of doing a summary of all reported bugs for every bug
>reporter
>in one single email that summarizes the current status, thanks them for
>the continuing support, and then asks them to retest against the latest
>stable. Preferably we do this around x.x.3 or so (enough time where
>regressions are worked out of the fresh build, maybe right after the
>fresh version become stable, we ask users to test against stable, not
>fresh). Thoughts?
>
>Best,
>Joel
>
>P.S. Again I think all of this should wait until we have our own bug
>tracker so we can suppress emails and not piss off everyone cc'ed on
>every bug . . .
>On 10/16/2014 09:19 PM, Tommy wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:00:16 +0200, bfoman
>> <bfo.bugmail at spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tommy wrote
>>>> we currently have 799 UNCONFIRMED and 7793 NEW bugs.
>>>> I think that there should be a consistent number of those who did
>not
>>>> receive any new comment in the last 6 months.
>>>> [...]
>>>> meanwhile, so please retest with current LibO release (4.3.2.2) and
>>>> give
>>>> feedback of the actual status of the bug. if bug is gone set status
>to
>>>> RESOLVED WORKSFORME. if bug is still present leave status UNCHANGED
>and
>>>> drop a new comment telling the LibO version where you retested and
>>>> reproduce it
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>> It is tempting to do it every branch (every 6 months), but that
>could
>>> be too
>>> often and annoy people if the bug is still there.
>>
>> yes, I agree we could do this only for 1 year old bugs if 6 months is
>> too often.
>>
>>> Considering current release schedule for 4.3 and realistic chances
>>> for getting fixes I think we
>>> should ask to check the bugs against master and do this ping before
>hard
>>> code freeze and branching.
>>
>> could be an intelligent thing to do.
>>
>>> I noticed that usually serious bugs are fixed in
>>> master or in earlier stages of particular branch, than backported to
>>> last
>>> few maintenance releases of the fresh branch. This ping should give
>the
>>> reporters the true message about current status of the issue and
>more
>>> testers of the next release. This also perfectly fits planned 4.4 BH
>>> session.
>>> Best regards.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/attachments/20141017/6fa6d58d/attachment-0001.html>