[Libreoffice-qa] ESC meeting minutes: 2022-06-16 (Down-stream projects in the bugzilla)

[Xisco Fauli]

Hello QA team,

During yesterday's ESC meeting, the topic regarding down-stream project 
was discussed, which concerns mostly QA and the people involved in QA. 
Below you can read the minutes.

In order to also have the team involved in this discussion, I would like 
to hear what people think on the topic and if they have any concern, so 
it can be discussed in the QA mailing list.

Regards

On 16/6/22 16:59, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> * Down-stream projects in the bugzilla (Kendy)
>     + any concerns with the existing setup?
>       + there was some concern on board-discuss@
>       + in most cases we have a nicely fit subproject in bugzilla
>     + any components missing?
>       + wanted to double-check with the ESC if this is still OK 
> technically
>     + any changes wanted?
>       + don't mind having them (Cloph)
>       + the problem started when some Collabora Online reports were 
> reported in bugzilla (Xisco)
>         + the problem was not Collabora Online (Kendy)
>           + no question about that, such shouldn't be in the TDF 
> bugzilla, there is a github issue tracker for that
>         + it was Collabora Office in mac app store
>           + no problem with that (Xisco)
>       + if it doesn't appear in LO itself, that would be different 
> (Kendy)
>       + if a Collabora Office customer reports a bug, does Collabora 
> enourage people to report bugs in the TDF bugzilla? (Olivier)
>         + no, please report such cases to us (Kendy)
>         + in many cases our tickets have a matching TDF bugreport
>           + intention is to be as open as possible
>         + regularly doing that, too (Thorsten)
>           + try to have matching TDF bugreports to be opened, if possible
>           + so we have a place were e.g. regressions / bibisects can 
> happen
>     + does it mean that downstream project handles bugs on their own, 
> only LO-relevant stuff goes to TDF bugzilla? (Heiko)
>       + Thorsten was talking about trying to be open: if the customer 
> report affects LO master, then file it as a TDF bug (Michael S)
>     + if people buy from app store / use distro packages, they don't 
> have enterprise customer relationship (Michael S)
>       + such an end-user may contribute by writing a quality 
> bugreport, just happens to be on a downstream version (Thorsten)
>       + e.g. in the past: there was lots of Linux distro users filing 
> bugs
>       + that mostly where not reproducible in upstream
>       + but e.g. bug in Debian may have a simple LO bug -> fair 
> upstream bugreport
>   + usually I use notourbug for flatpak/snap issues that seem to be 
> related to their sandboxing functionality or something similar (Ilmari)
>   + may cause some more work if bugs can't be reproduced due to 
> packaging differences (Thorsten)
>     + understand the frustration if the bug is specific to some 
> packaging but it's not obvious initially
>   + the bugs should be reasonably marked from a downstream vendor (mac 
> app store, Collabora, etc) (Kendy)
>     + then the volunteer is free to skip such bugs
>     + even if it may be relevant for LO master
>     + in other words: if it only affects downstream versions, feel 
> free to close it as NOTOURBUG (Cloph)
>     + i.e. happy to hear about all bugs, and then re-assess: if it's 
> low quality, hard-
>       to-reproduce bugs (e.g. coming from one particular packaging), 
> then it's not
>       worth it (Thorsten)
>       + this is about end-users of course, not enterprise customers 
> (unless for
>         documentation)
>     + agreed (all) 

-- 
Xisco Faulí
LibreOffice QA Team
IRC: x1sc0