[Libreoffice-qa] suggestion for weekly-bug-summary

Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michaelsen at canonical.com
Thu Jan 29 16:52:41 PST 2015


On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 04:14:24PM -0800, Joel Madero wrote:
> I've never been a fan of this split to begin with. Having a much less
> visible means of suggesting enhancement requests or bugs pretty much
> just sucks. Just speaking for myself, I'm very unlikely to report any
> enhancement requests about bugzilla on redmine...

Oh, hate the split too. The split will not go away easily though (I tried.
Hard.). Yeah, sucks. Still, the best we can do now is have a clear cut rather
than fractured border between the two.

> So we're only tracking enhancement requests if the reporter can either
> (1) do it themselves; or (2) they can show that it's reasonably
> resourced? I can't imagine a similar strategy working for LibreOffice
> itself - we might as well close 99% of enhancement requests. I don't get
> why we'd have two different "philosophies" just because one is "infra"
> and the other is .... something else?

So, maybe Im overcautious. ;)

As an exaggeration: There is a risk that we end up with 20 people working on
making our Bugzilla nice and beautiful and 1 guy working on triaging
LibreOffice. Also note that all customization cumulates to create extra pains
during updates etc.  IMHO we should just keep in mind to keep the fixed costs
of running our Bugzilla constant and rather low[1].



[1] For example that we ended up with a Redmine/Bugzilla split (which is
already a simplification over the mess we had before that) is ultimately a
result of bit too much fast-and-loose play with extending, creating and
customizing services.

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list