Re: Triage Project Update

Basically it would be really nice to be able to group and assign bugs the
way that the document does. I think bugs are much more manageable this way
and we've seen a relative spike in QA triaging activity since starting the
process this way. Not sure if you looked at the document but it's basically
manual everything, I download FDO bugs to Calc, group them based on
Component, then manually copy and paste into groupings of no more than 50.
It would be incredibly nice to have the list updated automatically based on
FDO, group the bugs based on component and then group each of those to a
max of 50 bugs per group. If each group of 50 could then be assigned to a
user it would be easy for members of QA to get involved with this project
and get this back log taken care of. I'm not sure if this is possible or
incredibly time consuming (if it is, probably not worth it). It would be
even better if we, as the QA team could do a custom "group" and then it
could assign us bugs based on that. For instance, I'm a QA member and I
want to do 20 bugs that are either Writer, Calc or Presentation, and I want
the oldest bugs (in terms of those that have been left UNCONFIRMED for the
longest period of time). It could then give me the list and allow me to
assign myself to the group, and thus prevent other QA members from getting
those bugs in their list when they do a custom search.

Sorry I felt like that was a bit of rambling, let me know if you need it
clarified, I can hardly understand it myself ;)


Best Regards,
Joel

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Nino Novak <nn.libo@kflog.org> wrote:

> Hi Joel,
>
> Am 04.09.2012 19:18 schrieb Joel Madero:
>
> > I have done a complete update of the google document, this being said, if
> > you named a sheet to your name, it's gone. Noel pointed out that a lot of
> > the bugs on the sheet were already triaged so I just started from
> scratch.
> > I'm still hoping the web team can help us move this away from google docs
> > and get it automated a bit but for now, it is what it is.
>
> I'm not sure to understand what you want to have automated, could you
> elaborate
> just a little bit (or - if you have done so already - point me to the
> archived
> mail)?
>
> Thanks,
> Nino