You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to qa@openoffice.apache.org by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de> on 2014/05/26 13:14:22 UTC
Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Hi,
my experience is that such tracking bugs are not useful. The time
invested in adding dependencies (what is rather uncertain, who can know
how many bugs are missing and on what facts the various contributors
added the bugs to the Meta) should be invested (with much more benefit)
into careful review of the related BZ bugs and completion of information
in the BZ bugs.
An example: "Issue 124891 - CRASH when close sidebar with Navigator active"
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124891>
I found that one with importance "Normal", what is rather inappropriate,
that one has blocker quality. Such a report should get an appropriate
importance rating, that's enough. If all info in the reports is up to
date a simple query replaces the Meta Bug.
And why is "Issue 124947 - Fullscreen Filter Freeze" blocking the meta
bug? Currently we know nothing, it's unconfirmed ...
"Issue 114361 - "Read Error" with embedded images after saving in
Writer" appeared with 3.2, why is this listed in a 4.1 related tracking bug?
And so on.
I recommend not to create tracking bugs what can be replaced easily by
queries and if there is no evidence that they are necessary for the bug
fixing process.
And if there is a decision that the tracking bug should be created
please follow
Best regards
Rainer
Hyperlinks:
[1]
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&f3=OP&f4=version&f5=version&f6=CP&f8=cf_bug_type&j3=OR&list_id=149754&o4=regexp&o5=regexp&o8=equals&priority=P1&priority=P2&query_format=advanced&v4=^4.1&v5=^4.2&v8=DEFECT>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
Hi Rainer,
On 26.05.2014 20:13, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> It's an essential that information should be consistent at any place for
> Bugzilla.
+1
> Here an overview concerning priority /severity of the issues listed in
> the meta-issue;
>
>
> ! Critical major normal trivial ! Total
> ---!-----------------------------------------!------
> P1 ! 1 . . . ! 1
> P2 ! . . . 1 ! 1
> P3 ! . 4 5 . ! 9
> ---!-----------------------------------------!------
> Tot! 1 4 5 1 ! 11
Regressions are also an important consideration.
> So my question is why Issue 114361 with severity "trivial" has been
> considered by godlike decision (there is no reasoning, neither in Issue
> 124985 nor in Issue 114361) so serious that it has been added added to
> the meta bug? With some minimum carefulness the severity would have been
> rised to "major" or more, the dataloss keyword would have been added, so
> that the decision will be comprehensible. I did that now in Issue 114361
A higher severity was very much warranted for this data loss. Data loss
sounds a bit like an abstract concept but in this case it was "I had a
perfectly fine presentation, saved it and some pics are gone!!!".
So the meta-issue helped to identify that this important issue was not
properly flagged and would have been overlooked if we had only used the
query as suggested. +1 for the meta-issue then.
> Common known characteristics of unresolved Issue 124985 blocking Bug
> reports you find in Report [1] (More than 3400). So the question is why
> have 11 been picked as blocker for the meta issue, but more of 3400 not
> [2]?
For the references [1], [2] or [3] in your mail I cannot find their
actual links, but I think I know what you mean. As said the meta-issue
is only intended as a publicly visible reminder and best-effort overview
what should eventually get into an eventual bugfix release if we decide
whether we'll need one. The meta-issue helps with this discussion. +1
for the meta-issue.
Whether they really should get into an eventual bugfix release would be
decided later by requesting the blocker flag.
I'd say good criteria for such issues are:
- regressions
- crashes
- data losses
* risk of new regressions
So even if a bug is only minor; if it is a regression, a fix is
available and low risk it should get into a bugfix release. Such a bug
would not be caught by a query for major issues, but IMHO they are great
candidates anyway.
Should we decide that our bugfix releases must only contain fixes for
bugs with major severity then this is fine as well. The bugs below this
level would be removed from nomination. I'd advise against ignoring such
fixes though.
> With some minimum corrections for the criteria of possible Meta bug
> blockers I can reduce the number by 90% [3]
> [...]
> Such systematic working is the only way for real progress.
This systematic work is very important indeed and I appreciate and have
the deepest respect for our QA volunteer who work on it.
> If after some work we have valid data in the bug reports Meta Bugs
> indeed can be useful to show up dependencies and relations what are not
> simply visible in the bug reports.
>
> For anything else queries like
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=149854&namedcmd=Potential411Blockers>
> (shared with registered users) are much more powerful, especially in
> projects with bigger community than AOO and much bug tracker activity
> (20 reports per day, not only 2).
I'm logged in and have all the rights needed but I can't see that query.
On the other hand the meta-issue is visible to everyone without any
trouble...
Best regards,
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
Hi Rainer,
On 26.05.2014 20:13, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> It's an essential that information should be consistent at any place for
> Bugzilla.
+1
> Here an overview concerning priority /severity of the issues listed in
> the meta-issue;
>
>
> ! Critical major normal trivial ! Total
> ---!-----------------------------------------!------
> P1 ! 1 . . . ! 1
> P2 ! . . . 1 ! 1
> P3 ! . 4 5 . ! 9
> ---!-----------------------------------------!------
> Tot! 1 4 5 1 ! 11
Regressions are also an important consideration.
> So my question is why Issue 114361 with severity "trivial" has been
> considered by godlike decision (there is no reasoning, neither in Issue
> 124985 nor in Issue 114361) so serious that it has been added added to
> the meta bug? With some minimum carefulness the severity would have been
> rised to "major" or more, the dataloss keyword would have been added, so
> that the decision will be comprehensible. I did that now in Issue 114361
A higher severity was very much warranted for this data loss. Data loss
sounds a bit like an abstract concept but in this case it was "I had a
perfectly fine presentation, saved it and some pics are gone!!!".
So the meta-issue helped to identify that this important issue was not
properly flagged and would have been overlooked if we had only used the
query as suggested. +1 for the meta-issue then.
> Common known characteristics of unresolved Issue 124985 blocking Bug
> reports you find in Report [1] (More than 3400). So the question is why
> have 11 been picked as blocker for the meta issue, but more of 3400 not
> [2]?
For the references [1], [2] or [3] in your mail I cannot find their
actual links, but I think I know what you mean. As said the meta-issue
is only intended as a publicly visible reminder and best-effort overview
what should eventually get into an eventual bugfix release if we decide
whether we'll need one. The meta-issue helps with this discussion. +1
for the meta-issue.
Whether they really should get into an eventual bugfix release would be
decided later by requesting the blocker flag.
I'd say good criteria for such issues are:
- regressions
- crashes
- data losses
* risk of new regressions
So even if a bug is only minor; if it is a regression, a fix is
available and low risk it should get into a bugfix release. Such a bug
would not be caught by a query for major issues, but IMHO they are great
candidates anyway.
Should we decide that our bugfix releases must only contain fixes for
bugs with major severity then this is fine as well. The bugs below this
level would be removed from nomination. I'd advise against ignoring such
fixes though.
> With some minimum corrections for the criteria of possible Meta bug
> blockers I can reduce the number by 90% [3]
> [...]
> Such systematic working is the only way for real progress.
This systematic work is very important indeed and I appreciate and have
the deepest respect for our QA volunteer who work on it.
> If after some work we have valid data in the bug reports Meta Bugs
> indeed can be useful to show up dependencies and relations what are not
> simply visible in the bug reports.
>
> For anything else queries like
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=149854&namedcmd=Potential411Blockers>
> (shared with registered users) are much more powerful, especially in
> projects with bigger community than AOO and much bug tracker activity
> (20 reports per day, not only 2).
I'm logged in and have all the rights needed but I can't see that query.
On the other hand the meta-issue is visible to everyone without any
trouble...
Best regards,
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 26/05/14 20:13, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
>
> I think we have some misunderstanding here.
>
> It's an essential that information should be consistent at any place for
> Bugzilla.
>
> Here an overview concerning priority /severity of the issues listed in
> the meta-issue;
>
>
> ! Critical major normal trivial ! Total
> ---!-----------------------------------------!------
> P1 ! 1 . . . ! 1
> P2 ! . . . 1 ! 1
> P3 ! . 4 5 . ! 9
> ---!-----------------------------------------!------
> Tot! 1 4 5 1 ! 11
>
> So my question is why Issue 114361 with severity "trivial" has been
> considered by godlike decision (there is no reasoning, neither in Issue
> 124985 nor in Issue 114361) so serious that it has been added added to
> the meta bug? With some minimum carefulness the severity would have been
> rised to "major" or more, the dataloss keyword would have been added, so
> that the decision will be comprehensible. I did that now in Issue 114361
>
> Common known characteristics of unresolved Issue 124985 blocking Bug
> reports you find in Report [1] (More than 3400). So the question is why
> have 11 been picked as blocker for the meta issue, but more of 3400 not
> [2]?
The answer is quite simple because developers took care of these issues
and provided a fix or have a fix in place.
We don't fix issues in the order they are detected or reported.
>
> With some minimum corrections for the criteria of possible Meta bug
> blockers I can reduce the number by 90% [3]
>
> [4] Sorts these issues by priority /severity, the 12 with "critical +
> P2" need some urgent review as I did for "Issue 118725 - images dropped
> by random"
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118725>
> "Issue 122780"
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122780> and others
>
> And so on.
>
> Such systematic working is the only way for real progress.
it is indeed useful but again anybody can focus on the issues they are
interested in. And a closer look on the issues in the meta issue will
show that they are all valid and serious enough.
And in general we have so many bug reports that it is nearly impossible
to to address them all, at least from a developer perspective. And if
issues are not reproduceable or bug docs are missing etc. they got easy
ignored because we have many others with better descriptions etc.
But I agree 100% that we should add as much as possible meta info in the
issue to make the selection or review as easy as possible. In case of
114361 the data loss keyword is of course very useful to make clear that
this issue is a good candidate. We received some reports regarding this
or similar behaviour and Oliver did a more careful analysis and found
the root cause. The good thing is that he searched for similar older
issues and found one.
>
> If after some work we have valid data in the bug reports Meta Bugs
> indeed can be useful to show up dependencies and relations what are not
> simply visible in the bug reports.
>
> For anything else queries like
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=149854&namedcmd=Potential411Blockers>
> (shared with registered users) are much more powerful, especially in
> projects with bigger community than AOO and much bug tracker activity
> (20 reports per day, not only 2).
>
I think we are all in the same boat and have a common understanding but
we are not yet in the situation where we have a cleaned bugtracker. And
we have too less volunteers to help either in reviewing the issues or
fix them.
And of course you drove an active volunteer (maybe over motivated) away
with a somewhat strict and of course your personal opinion how QA work
should be done.
You can now disagree and can move away as well (I hope you do not) but
it is as it is. And we have no ideal world in such a huge open source
project. We can learn from each other and can improve over time. But it
is always important how we collaborate and work together.
For now I am in favor to address the most recent issues first and keep
an eye on the priority and incoming issues in general where possible.
Kind regards
Juergen
> Best regards
>
> Rainer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Hi Herbert,
I think we have some misunderstanding here.
It's an essential that information should be consistent at any place for
Bugzilla.
Here an overview concerning priority /severity of the issues listed in
the meta-issue;
! Critical major normal trivial ! Total
---!-----------------------------------------!------
P1 ! 1 . . . ! 1
P2 ! . . . 1 ! 1
P3 ! . 4 5 . ! 9
---!-----------------------------------------!------
Tot! 1 4 5 1 ! 11
So my question is why Issue 114361 with severity "trivial" has been
considered by godlike decision (there is no reasoning, neither in Issue
124985 nor in Issue 114361) so serious that it has been added added to
the meta bug? With some minimum carefulness the severity would have been
rised to "major" or more, the dataloss keyword would have been added, so
that the decision will be comprehensible. I did that now in Issue 114361
Common known characteristics of unresolved Issue 124985 blocking Bug
reports you find in Report [1] (More than 3400). So the question is why
have 11 been picked as blocker for the meta issue, but more of 3400 not [2]?
With some minimum corrections for the criteria of possible Meta bug
blockers I can reduce the number by 90% [3]
[4] Sorts these issues by priority /severity, the 12 with "critical +
P2" need some urgent review as I did for "Issue 118725 - images dropped
by random"
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118725>
"Issue 122780"
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122780> and others
And so on.
Such systematic working is the only way for real progress.
If after some work we have valid data in the bug reports Meta Bugs
indeed can be useful to show up dependencies and relations what are not
simply visible in the bug reports.
For anything else queries like
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=149854&namedcmd=Potential411Blockers>
(shared with registered users) are much more powerful, especially in
projects with bigger community than AOO and much bug tracker activity
(20 reports per day, not only 2).
Best regards
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Posted by Rainer Bielefeld <ra...@bielefeldundbuss.de>.
Hi Herbert,
I think we have some misunderstanding here.
It's an essential that information should be consistent at any place for
Bugzilla.
Here an overview concerning priority /severity of the issues listed in
the meta-issue;
! Critical major normal trivial ! Total
---!-----------------------------------------!------
P1 ! 1 . . . ! 1
P2 ! . . . 1 ! 1
P3 ! . 4 5 . ! 9
---!-----------------------------------------!------
Tot! 1 4 5 1 ! 11
So my question is why Issue 114361 with severity "trivial" has been
considered by godlike decision (there is no reasoning, neither in Issue
124985 nor in Issue 114361) so serious that it has been added added to
the meta bug? With some minimum carefulness the severity would have been
rised to "major" or more, the dataloss keyword would have been added, so
that the decision will be comprehensible. I did that now in Issue 114361
Common known characteristics of unresolved Issue 124985 blocking Bug
reports you find in Report [1] (More than 3400). So the question is why
have 11 been picked as blocker for the meta issue, but more of 3400 not [2]?
With some minimum corrections for the criteria of possible Meta bug
blockers I can reduce the number by 90% [3]
[4] Sorts these issues by priority /severity, the 12 with "critical +
P2" need some urgent review as I did for "Issue 118725 - images dropped
by random"
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118725>
"Issue 122780"
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122780> and others
And so on.
Such systematic working is the only way for real progress.
If after some work we have valid data in the bug reports Meta Bugs
indeed can be useful to show up dependencies and relations what are not
simply visible in the bug reports.
For anything else queries like
<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=149854&namedcmd=Potential411Blockers>
(shared with registered users) are much more powerful, especially in
projects with bigger community than AOO and much bug tracker activity
(20 reports per day, not only 2).
Best regards
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 26.05.2014 13:14, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> my experience is that such tracking bugs are not useful. The time
> invested in adding dependencies (what is rather uncertain, who can know
> how many bugs are missing and on what facts the various contributors
> added the bugs to the Meta) should be invested (with much more benefit)
> into careful review of the related BZ bugs and completion of information
> in the BZ bugs.
I disagree that they are useless. As long as we're not sure if or when
we should do a 4.1.1 and what changes could get into it such a
meta-issue gives an easy overview of the candidates and their status:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/showdependencytree.cgi?id=124985&hide_resolved=0
If we decide to make a bugfix release then the appropriate milestone
target and its release-blocker flag will be created. Once the issue
candidates have been reviewed and their bug fields (target and blocker)
have been adjusted only then the meta-bug becomes irrelevant. But up to
that point it is a good tracking mechanism with global visibility, clear
accountability of who suggested what and direct links to the candidate
issues.
> I recommend not to create tracking bugs what can be replaced easily by
> queries and if there is no evidence that they are necessary for the bug
> fixing process.
>
> And if there is a decision that the tracking bug should be created
> please follow
> [...]
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&f3=OP&f4=version&f5=version&f6=CP&f8=cf_bug_type&j3=OR&list_id=149754&o4=regexp&o5=regexp&o8=equals&priority=P1&priority=P2&query_format=advanced&v4=^4.1&v5=^4.2&v8=DEFECT>
Currently this query just yields bug 124891 which indeed looks like a
good candidate.
I suggest to FUP this discussion on the qa@openoffice.apache.org list.
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: qa-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Tracking bugs like Issue 124985 - [Meta] Meta Bug for collecting
bugs which appeal for AOO 4.1.x
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 26.05.2014 13:14, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> my experience is that such tracking bugs are not useful. The time
> invested in adding dependencies (what is rather uncertain, who can know
> how many bugs are missing and on what facts the various contributors
> added the bugs to the Meta) should be invested (with much more benefit)
> into careful review of the related BZ bugs and completion of information
> in the BZ bugs.
I disagree that they are useless. As long as we're not sure if or when
we should do a 4.1.1 and what changes could get into it such a
meta-issue gives an easy overview of the candidates and their status:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/showdependencytree.cgi?id=124985&hide_resolved=0
If we decide to make a bugfix release then the appropriate milestone
target and its release-blocker flag will be created. Once the issue
candidates have been reviewed and their bug fields (target and blocker)
have been adjusted only then the meta-bug becomes irrelevant. But up to
that point it is a good tracking mechanism with global visibility, clear
accountability of who suggested what and direct links to the candidate
issues.
> I recommend not to create tracking bugs what can be replaced easily by
> queries and if there is no evidence that they are necessary for the bug
> fixing process.
>
> And if there is a decision that the tracking bug should be created
> please follow
> [...]
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=ACCEPTED&bug_status=REOPENED&f3=OP&f4=version&f5=version&f6=CP&f8=cf_bug_type&j3=OR&list_id=149754&o4=regexp&o5=regexp&o8=equals&priority=P1&priority=P2&query_format=advanced&v4=^4.1&v5=^4.2&v8=DEFECT>
Currently this query just yields bug 124891 which indeed looks like a
good candidate.
I suggest to FUP this discussion on the qa@openoffice.apache.org list.
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org