[Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

Sophie gautier.sophie at gmail.com
Tue Dec 1 09:03:04 PST 2015

Hi Joel,
Le 01/12/2015 17:53, Joel Madero a écrit :
> On 12/01/2015 02:59 AM, Pedro wrote:
>> No, I never tried bibisect on Windows. But Sophie volunteered to give me a
>> hand if I decided to try so I assume it is possible.
>> Again, what would be the advantage to have the user install 4.0.0 Beta1,
>> Beta2, RC1, etc? Reducing the search range to a 0.0.1 isn't good enough?
>> Does the full footwork have to be on the QA side?
> At least some developers agree with me btw - "precision is good" and
> "lowering to the lowest common denominator doesn't seem ideal." Again,
> certain developers have complained about QA tinkering without thinking
> about the repercussions. Just because you can't see the benefits to
> precision does not mean there aren't any.
> Just food for thought as we debate changing things *once again*. Do we
> actually know for a fact that users are getting confused by having a few
> extra versions listed? Or are we just assuming (or it's a corner case
> with a couple users complaining?) and in response we want to yet again
> modify bugzilla versions?

Tommy's proposal was to simplify BZ approach on a user point of view. It
is intimidating to go further when you're not sure what version you are
using, and RC, beta are not clear things for users.
What he was trying to find imho is a compromise between what is needed
for QA and for users. Of course, the more granularity the better, but I
think also that a long list of version is confusing.
I'm not doing enough QA currently to have a firm opinion on Tommy's
proposal, but I understand his request to shorten the 6 month period in
this way.


Sophie Gautier sophie.gautier at documentfoundation.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list