[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 48015] Option to export all sheet from Drawing and Presentation module

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48015

--- Comment #15 from Joel Madero <jmadero.dev at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to jan iversen from comment #14)
> (In reply to Joel Madero from comment #13)
> > Okay - I don't follow any of those decisions any more. Couple notes then:
> > 
> > 1) ESC or someone else should figure out what to do about needsDevEval
> > (which again is literally the exact same thing in this case); 
> 
> Actually not, only for easyhacks. When I look at bugs with needsDevEval
> there are typically questions about more than just code pointers.

Hm - no idea. I know that when needsDevEval was proposed it was meant to
replace propsedEasyHack....if it's not being used that way, I have no idea.


> > 2) Markus before was really against using any other term that had "easyhack"
> > in it because searches become difficult so again, ESC should deal with it.
> The much simpler solution is to remove easyhack, after having monitored
> easyhacks closely for half a year, it is my experience that code pointers
> are very seldomly added later (see the current NEEDINFO and how old they are)

That's not my call to make. If easyHacks are leaving, then so be it ;) You and
ESC can make that call. I suspect some advocates won't be happy.

> > 
> > My guess is lots and lots of bugs will be inadvertently closed with this
> > method but that's no longer my issue.
> lots and lots is a bit high, we have at the moment ca. 15 issues missing
> code pointer.

Fair

> And if a code pointer is not supplied in 7 month, why should it be supplied
> later.

The problem is that these bugs are entirely valid but will be closed as INVALID
if they go to NEEDINFO and sit there for 7 months. So, the bugs are
inappropriately closed as INVALID (because they are entirely valid) they just
don't have code pointers.

> 
> Adding more keywords like proposed_easyhacks just means more maintenance and
> complexer searchs, but I am quite indifferent as long as we have a fixed
> definition.

I didn't say anything about adding new keywords - I said we have one already
that at least in theory should be used for (see
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Keywords#needsDevEval)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.