Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

On 8/15/2012 3:20 PM, Marc Grober wrote:
> On 8/15/12 1:57 PM, Andrew Brager wrote:
> > Thanks for your comments.  What still remains unclear to me (not that it
> > matters as I have no influence/authority on anything done by anyone  -
> > I'm simply trying to help you all sort it out so somebody in a position
> > to do something can then do it) is whether the bug status was changed in
> > that 5 month period between when you re-confirmed the bug, and when it
> > was closed.
> >
> > In other words, did it get changed from NEEDINFO to NEW when you
> > reconfirmed the bug, as was implied should have happened?  Or did it go
> > from NEEDINFO to CLOSED with no intervening status?  If the latter, then
> > in my opinion there's a bug in bugzilla as (I would think) it should
> > have changed when you reconfirmed the bug.  If the former, then there's
> > a problem with the process, not the tool.  The answers to those
> > questions will answer the question "which one needs fixing?"  If the
> > process needs fixing, then in my opinion there needs to be additional
> > status flags and additional feedback from the developers as I previously
> > wrote.
> >
> > Based on Florien's post, it sounds like he only closed those that were
> > in the NEEDINFO state, which implies there's a bug in bugzilla as I
> > state above.
> I think there is another possibility, and that is that the bug lifecycle
> is dubious. See, https://bugs.freedesktop.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html

That diagram is in fact interesting.  Based on that diagram (which may 
or may not be utilized by the LO team), then the process followed by the 
LO team is in error.  They've chosen to dump unconfirmed bugs back on 
the user community, instead of confirming the bugs themselves.  I can 
understand why they've done it, the work is probably overwhelming and 
they're volunteers so they've chosen to let each individual user/bug 
submitter either resubmit or assume resolved status.  Not a bad choice 
from their point of view, it's the path of least work for them.  It 
makes sense from that viewpoint.  The proper way to do it would have 
been to check each bug themselves as normally would be done prior to a 
production release.  They took the practical, expedient approach instead 
and I don't think you can fault them for doing so.


> With respect to LO bugs,  it is still unclear what the various stages of
> the bug lifecycle is, and who is empowered to make various changes to
> the bug status. As an unempowered user I cannot "confirm" a bug.

Nor should you be able to confirm a bug.  And that of course is where 
the model (or process) is broken, since as I mentioned above they've 
dumped the testing back on the user - with decent reasoning - but it 
still breaks the model as provided by the diagram.  So yes, somebody on 
the developer's side needs to make some decisions as to how best to fix 
the model and/or process.  Personally I don't see a problem with their 
decision to dump the bugs back on the user considering they themselves 
are volunteers, but somewhere somehow the status needs to change from 
NEEDINFO to NEW (which is not provided for in the model so clearly 
things have changed either with the model as supplied by bugzilla, or 
the LO team has customized their copy.  So, I reiterate my previous 
comment that more info. is needed from the bug submitters as to what 
stages the status flags went through to determine whether it's the 
process or bugzilla that needs fixing.

> Moreover, there is no context help available regarding status hierarchy.
>
> What I think I am seeing, as in so many such projects,  is a disconnect
> between what devs think is happening and what bug reporters think is
> happening.....
I agree with your assessment.  But until someone starts providing the 
missing info. I fear there can be no resolution.  Ultimately someone 
from the developer's and/or administrative side of the fence needs to 
figure out how to resolve this to most people's satisfaction.



--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted