[Libreoffice] Bug triaging - bugs in OOo code base

[Wols Lists]

On 07/01/11 18:09, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
> Hi,
> A question to the developers, which will inevitably become more
> important as things push on with LibO and the code base starts to separate :
> 
> - what is the current approach, with regard to bug triaging, to bugs
> caused by the OOo code base ?
> 
> What I mean is that do we consider them to be our own bugs, or not ?
> 
> From the bug triager's point of view, it is easy to tell someone that
> this is "NOTOURBUG", however, I have my doubts about that

Well, if it's in the code we're shipping then it is our bug ...

 because
> ultimately, someone who knows nothing about OOo and who has only ever
> used LibO, is not likely to understand the underpinning between the code
> bases and therefore not be entirely satisfied with the bug being
> classified as someone else's when in fact substantially the same code
> base is used. Of course, there are people who file reports knowing that
> the bug exists in the OOo codebase and hoping that the LibO devs will
> sort it out - this is a kind of catch 22 for the bug triager ? - to
> clear out or not to clear out ?
> 
imho it should be classified as UPSTREAM.
> 
> I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter, as it will help me to
> better sort through the bug reports.
> 
It seems highly likely we are going to diverge from OOo, and that the
discrepancies will steadily grow, so this is simply YAI (yet another
instance).

Then the bug-fixers can decide whether to fix it themselves or wait for
OOo to fix it. And your "someone who knows nothing about OOo" can be
assured that we know about the bug, and it will (hopefully) be dealt
with. Plus, if we've got a load of bugs marked "UPSTREAM" it makes it a
lot easier for the OOo devs to scan our bug database and find stuff that
interests them. (Or our bugfixers can assign the patch to OOo.)
> 
> Alex
> 
But all this is my personal imho, so don't take this as a guideline
unless nobody else chips in with a more definitive statement ...

Cheers,
Wol