Re: [Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...
baron at caesar.elte.hu
Mon Sep 19 22:55:59 UTC 2016
On Monday, September 19, 2016 12:43 CEST, Xisco Fauli <xiscofauli at libreoffice.org> wrote:
> - needAdvise: Used when help from developers in needed to confirm
> an UNCONFIRMED bug. Info:
> * Problem 1: Name is confusing.
> + Action: Rename it to 'needsConfirmationAdvise'
> * Problem 2: No New or resolved bugs should use it.
> + Action: Clean it up and create a new gardening task.
I think it would make sense to keep needAdvice keyword unrestricted from states.
- NEW doesn't always mean QA was able to reproduce the bug (if TRIAGED status
was in place, that would), see bug 101898 for example.
- if further details are posted in a bug report that require timely reaction, but QA can't evaluate
them, advice from developers would be needed regardless of status. Again, a recent example:
bug 101821 (a question in this case, I haven't added the keyword, yet).
My suggestion is to name it something like needsDevAdvice, remove if advice was given, keyword
was used unnecessarily or report got closed. It should still be used very conservatively, of course.
> - needsDevEval: Should be used when a plausible easyhack lacks the
> code pointer, the difficulty, the topic or the skill and a developer > needs to provide the information missing.
> * Problem 1: It has been used to propose easyhacks over the > last months.
> + Action: Update the wiki accordingly:
What is the problem here? Is a proposed easy hack fundamentally different from an easy hack that
lacks necessary details? Both are for the same people: the developers who have understanding of
the relevant pieces of code.
What is the workflow if I see a bug report that might be easy enough to be an easy hack, but I have
zero knowledge about the underlying code? My ability to evaluate it stops before the first action step
detailed in response to Problem 4. So, CC Jan and ask his opinion? Does any keyword need to be set?
More information about the LibreOffice