[Libreoffice-qa] On self-triaging

Áron Budea baron at caesar.elte.hu
Fri Sep 4 21:07:22 UTC 2020

Hi Telesto,

Thanks for your reply to my somewhat off-topic comments in tdf#136441, let's continue here.

> That's a policy matter which should be discussed. I personally don't like
> unconfirmed bugs in the meta bug list. As I list those meta bugs to look
> through them searching for existing bugs once in a while (and in those list
> there is no way of telling what's a confirmed bug or unconfirmed/needinfo
> bug). 

Personally, I'd say this is a matter of bug quality. An experienced reporter/triager should have no problem with triaging their own bug to a large extent. If it reasonably looks like a bug, no duplicates can be found via a quick search, and the meta bug it belongs to has been identified, I see no problem with adding the bug to the corresponding meta bug. It can be removed at any point if it turns out the bug report doesn't belong there.

There are two ways I know of to see bug statuses for bugs associated to a meta bug:
- unconfirmed bugs are shown italicized in the 'Depends on' field of the meta bug,
- clicking 'Show dependency tree', and then 'view as bug list' shows all the important fields, including status (the displayed fields can be customized).

> Secondly adding bugs to meta bugs is a really time consuming business. I
> really have to look up the meta bug list nearly every time. Or i'm doing
> something pretty inefficient.

Right, still, someone has to do it in the end. There is no shortage of bug reports and bug reporters, while there are a lot less triagers, and thorough triaging is also more work. Thus I think it's considerate towards other contributors to take care of these tasks right when reporting bugs (or later), if possible.

I don't know of any quicker way than showing All entries on the following wiki page, and searching for candidates, either:

Thank you,

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list