[Libreoffice-qa] Bugzila 4.3.x versions cleanup

Joel Madero jmadero.dev at gmail.com
Tue Dec 1 10:21:26 PST 2015

On 12/01/2015 10:16 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> and beta2: 42
> between rc3 and rc4
> As long as the merge-to-one-version indicates what version was set
> prior to the unification, I  don't see the information loss, but it
> should be a standardized comment, so that you could still use queries
> for those versions.
Ah I see the confusion here. I'm talking about cases where _after the
merge happens_ we are asking users to go back and download archived
versions to try to narrow down where their regression was introduced. I
agree that if the version was already set to begin with then it's not a
big deal, but after the merge happens, if we're asking users to "narrow
down the regression 'as much as possible'" but then we are taking away
their ability to actually set the version...that seems like a problem
and pretty confusing.

This is why the 6 month rule IMHO makes sense. This gives QA 6 months to
triage the bug, try to determine if it's a regression, and try to get
users to assist as much as possible by narrowing down the version to the
most precise possible (absent bibisecting/bisecting). After 6 months it
probably is a lot less likely that the user would care enough to test
the bug against older versions so it makes sense to purge at this point.
2-3 months turnaround is IMHO too short when it can take 60 days just to
triage the bug (before there is a single touch by QA).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/attachments/20151201/375e922d/attachment.html>

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list