[Libreoffice-qa] ping to retest old bugs

Joel Madero jmadero.dev at gmail.com
Fri Oct 17 15:30:52 PDT 2014

Sounds great - so let's try to come up with a concrete plan that
everyone (or most) sign off on and then just do a thumbs up or down
vote. Let's try to not get too picky about the details.

@Tommy - you mind giving a proposed consistent plan of attack? If you
want me to briefly write something up let me know.


On 10/17/2014 01:24 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Aleksandr P <alexpikptz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2014-10-16 23:00 GMT+04:00 bfoman <bfo.bugmail at spamgourmet.com>:
>>> 1) If they see the bug has gone they should mark as WORKSFORME
>>> 2) if bug persist they should drop a note and leave status UNCHANGED
>>> 3) if nobody answers we do nothing and leave status UNCHANGED
>> I think we should have an easy way to distinguish the second and the
>> third situation. Not only bugreporters but QA-team members and other
>> people would want to recheck old bugs. It could be a good task for new
>> contributors, because it would help to find duplicates in future.
> I think the best way for us to distinguish cases 2 & 3 is to store
> reproducibility with a particular version of LibreOffice as tuples of
> information, so it can be queried.  (It would also be helpful to know
> if a particular CONFIRMED or NOREPRO result comes from the Original
> Reporter, or from someone else).
> We don't have a good way right now to capture or display repro test
> results as structured data, but I've got some good ideas about how we
> might implement that in the future. For the time being, *judicious*
> pinging of users (asking them to retest against a more modern version)
> seems fine to me :-)

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list