Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index


bfo píše v Čt 17. 01. 2013 v 13:29 -0800:
Hi!
Please explain little more the following:


jmadero wrote
-Status clarification (New vs. Reopened)
**Agreed: *Reopened should only be used if the bug is assigned

- often Reopened status is used by the Reporters when bug is marked as
INVALID, DUPLICATE or WFM, how this new policy will work for those? Will you
introduce some Bugzilla checks preventing such transition?


jmadero wrote
-*Agreed: *NEEDINFO: Used only if most the information is there and the 
bug can be confirmed but additional information would be useful
Request that once information is provided, move bug to NEW not to 
UNCONFIRMED or REOPENED
-*Agreed: *INVALID: If bug cannot be confirmed with information and 
there just isn't enough information there to reproduce the bug, we will 
move to INVALID
Comment shouldn't ask user to change status once additional information 
is provided (if additional information is provided), instead QA member 
should change status once they can confirm bug.

Very often the bug can't be confirmed, some attachments or STRs are missing 
- NEEDINFO was a perfect marking for such bugs after asking for additional
info, also clearing UNCONFIRMED backlog. Now I should mark such bugs as
INVALID? So, no babysitting policy implemented? This is a radical change. 
Do we care about those reports and if yes how to differentiate between real
INVALID requests (like bug clones etc.) and needing info INVALID bugs? By
NEEDINFO keyword?

I share the bfo's doubts here. NEEDINFO is standard and polite way to
get more information when a bug is not reproducible.

I guess that the motivation for the new approach is to avoid a mass
close of bugs that are in NEEDINFO for too long time. Some people though
that the last mass close was too rude. IMHO, this immediate closing is
even more rude ;-)

IMHO, the mass close is better and valid solution. Could we please
reconsider this?


Best Regards,
Petr

PS: I am sorry that I missed the last QA call. I want to attend it this
week.


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.