Accepting WhiteLabel Office Bug Reports?

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>]

I notice that a bugzilla report on WhiteLabel Office 3.3.1 was received and 
closed as invalid: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118695>.

I wonder if there is something more generous that can be provided here while 
the relationship between WLO 3.3.x, OO.o and AOO is sorted out.

One step would be to accept those bug reports (some might, after all, apply to 
OO.o 3.3.0, AOO and other OO.o-lineage branches too), but provide a tag for or 
Product Label for these legacy updates.

Can it be found in our hearts to accepts these and be gentler with them and 
the users who go to the trouble to submit them?

Clearly, there are TOO folks who could handle them if they are WLO-only 
defects.

This seems valuable while there is continued discussion with Team OpenOffice 
on how to provide maintenance on existing OO.o releases until those versions 
are deemed no longer supportable by public updates.  It would be a shame to 
fork issue reporting even more than it already is, especially for maintenance 
on pre-OO.o 3.4 releases that cannot be done via Apache OpenOffice releases.

 - Dennis

Re: Accepting WhiteLabel Office Bug Reports?

[Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> The best thing we can do in cases like this is to tell the user that
> they reported the bug to the wrong place and to point them in the best
> direction to resolve their issue.  We help the user by pointing them
> in the right direction to resolve their issues.

I have found a right direction.
http://teamopenoffice.org/en/too331notes.html
They say "Do you want to give feedback ?  Please visit our forum !"
http://teamopenoffice.org/en/forum
:)
Thanks,
khirano
-- 
khirano@apache.org
Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/

Re: Accepting WhiteLabel Office Bug Reports?

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> I notice that a bugzilla report on WhiteLabel Office 3.3.1 was received and
> closed as invalid: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118695>.
>
> I wonder if there is something more generous that can be provided here while
> the relationship between WLO 3.3.x, OO.o and AOO is sorted out.
>

We want to be generous to the user, I assume.

Remember, Bugzilla is not the user forum or user discussion list.  It
is not the first place we encourage users to go for support.

The best thing we can do in cases like this is to tell the user that
they reported the bug to the wrong place and to point them in the best
direction to resolve their issue.  We help the user by pointing them
in the right direction to resolve their issues.

Of course, I'd hope that before we close such issues, however
misdirected they were, that we first confirm that the bug does not
also exist in AOO.  If it does, then we should treat it like any other
bug.

-Rob

Re: Accepting WhiteLabel Office Bug Reports?

[Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>]

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I notice that a bugzilla report on WhiteLabel Office 3.3.1 was received and
> closed as invalid: <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118695>.
> ... Can it be found in our hearts to accepts these and be gentler with them and
> the users who go to the trouble to submit them?

WhiteLabel Office 3.3.1 does not exist. A release candidate is by no 
means a final release and it is only meant for testing; this is another 
of the details that the TeamOpenOffice.org press release did not stress 
adequately.

> Clearly, there are TOO folks who could handle them if they are WLO-only
> defects.

Sure, but release candidates should be announced properly (i.e., not 
with a widely circulated press release).

My proposal would be to add a keyword named "external" to BugZilla and 
tag all related reports with it, and then at due time close all open 
issues with that keyword as "Invalid" (if indeed White Label Office 
3.3.1 is released as a separate product) or deal with them (if something 
special happens and White Label Office 3.3.1 is released with a proper 
name, proper QA and proper collaboration).

Regards,
   Andrea.