[Libreoffice-qa] MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Tommy Tommy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Libreoffice-qa] MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

3.6.7 is out and will be the last 3.6 release.
I'm just curious to know when still living 3.6 bugs will be moved to the  
4.0 list.
I offer my help to revise some of those bugs and move them to the new list  
if they are still valid in 4.0.4.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Tommy Tommy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:39:24 +0200, Tommy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 3.6.7 is out and will be the last 3.6 release.
> I'm just curious to know when still living 3.6 bugs will be moved to the  
> 4.0 list.
> I offer my help to revise some of those bugs and move them to the new  
> list if they are still valid in 4.0.4.
>

any feedback from the QA team?

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Florian Reisinger Florian Reisinger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

Hi,

Am 26.07.2013 12:42, schrieb Tommy:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:39:24 +0200, Tommy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 3.6.7 is out and will be the last 3.6 release.
>> I'm just curious to know when still living 3.6 bugs will be moved to
>> the 4.0 list.

Do you mean MAB? After EOL (End of Life [at TDF]) the list should be
checked and I firmly believe, that this will be quite automatic....

>> I offer my help to revise some of those bugs and move them to the new
>> list if they are still valid in 4.0.4.
>>
>
> any feedback from the QA team?

I really appriciate every single helping hand. If you want to help, you
may consider starting with these bugs (long link)
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=326020&query_format=advanced&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=REOPENED&version=unspecified&version=3.3.0%20Beta2&version=3.3.0%20Beta3&version=3.3.0%20RC1&version=3.3.0%20RC2&version=3.3.0%20RC3&version=3.3.0%20RC4&version=3.3.0%20release&version=3.3.1%20RC1&version=3.3.1%20release&version=3.3.2%20RC1&version=3.3.2%20RC2&version=3.3.2%20release&version=3.4.0%20Beta1&version=3.4.0%20Beta2&version=3.4.0%20Beta3&version=3.4.0%20Beta4&version=3.4.0%20Beta5&version=3.4.0%20RC1&version=3.3.3%20release&version=3.4.0%20release&version=3.4.1%20RC1&version=3.4.1%20RC2&version=3.4.1%20release&version=3.4%20Daily&version=Master%20old%20%20-3.6&version=3.4.2%20RC1&version=3.4.2%20RC2&version=3.4.2%20release&version=3.3.4%20release&version=3.4.3%20RC1&version=3.4.3%20release&version=3.4.4%20RC1&version=3.4.4%20release&version=3.5.0%20Beta0&version=3.5.0%20Beta1&version=3.4.5%20RC1&version=3.5.0%20Beta2&version=3.4.5%20release&version=3.5.0%20Beta3&version=3.5.0%20RC1&version=3.5.0%20RC2&version=3.5.0%20release&version=3.5.1%20RC1&version=3.5.1%20release&version=3.4.6%20RC1&version=3.4.6%20release&version=3.5%20Daily&version=3.5.2%20RC1&version=3.5.2%20release&version=3.5.3%20RC1&version=3.5.3%20release&version=3.5.4%20RC1&version=3.5.4%20release&version=3.6.0.0.alpha1&version=4.0.0.0.alpha0%2B%20Master&version=3.6.0.0.beta1&version=3.5.5.1%20rc&version=3.6.0.0.beta2&version=3.5.5.2%20rc&version=3.5.5.3%20release&version=3.6.0.0.beta3&version=3.6.0.1%20rc&version=3.6.0.2%20rc&version=3.6.0.3%20rc&version=3.6.0.4%20release&version=3.5.6.1%20rc&version=3.5.6.2%20release&version=3.6.1.1%20rc&version=3.6.1.2%20release&version=3.6.2.1%20rc&version=3.5.7.1%20rc&version=3.6.2.2%20release&version=3.5.7.2%20release&version=3.6.3.1%20rc&version=3.6.3.2%20release&version=3.6.4.1%20rc&version=3.6.4.3%20release&version=3.6.5.2%20release&version=3.6.6.1%20rc&version=3.6.6.2%20release&version=3.6.7.1%20rc&version=3.3%20all%20versions&version=3.4%20all%20versions&version=3.5%20all%20versions&version=3.6.7.2%20rc&product=LibreOffice

If you need any help, please ask.
PS: The version field has the oldest version, where the bug can be
reproduced....

>
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: [hidden email]
> Change settings:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/


--
Liebe Grüße, / Yours,
Florian Reisinger


_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Petr Mladek Petr Mladek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

In reply to this post by Tommy
(I am sorry for duplicit posting. There was a problem in the mailing
list setting and my mail had been eaten.)


Tommy píše v St 24. 07. 2013 v 20:39 +0200:
> 3.6.7 is out and will be the last 3.6 release.
> I'm just curious to know when still living 3.6 bugs will be moved to the  
> 4.0 list.

IMHO, we could start at any time now. But please, double check it with
Joel.

> I offer my help to revise some of those bugs and move them to the new list  
> if they are still valid in 4.0.4.

Thanks a lot for your offer. It will be a big help!

I think that we should use this opportunity also for some clean up. As
you mention, it would be great to double check if the bugs are still
valid. Also we should double check that they really deserve to be MABs,
see https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Most_Annoying_Bugs

The problem is that we are not that strict all the time. It helped to
reduce useless fights about the priority. On the other hand, we should
not keep the wrongly sorted bugs for years. If a bug is not fixed soon
there is something smelly about it ;-)

First, let's repeat how MABs work. The severity/priority is not set
correctly for most bugs, so it is hard to see the important bugs in the
jungle. MABs help to highlight the most critical bugs and bring
developers attention. The comments from the meta bug are sent to the
developer mailing list and the bugs are advertised there. Developers
monitor it and give these bugs high priority. The nearly blockers are
fixed almost immediately. The other _very_ critical bugs are fixed
within days or weeks. Some bugs are somehow ignored, see below.

The main purpose of MAB is to get TOP priority attention. It is for
blockers, nearly blockers, something that really should get fixed very
soon. These are usually regressions that affect many people, do not have
any workaround, ...

The magic will work only if we keep the flow on reasonable level (max 10
bugs per week?). Otherwise, developers won't be able to keep up with the
flood, the list of non-fixed bug will grow and we will get another
swamp. It will lose the dynamics and all parts will get frustrated.

Now, what are the MABs that are not fixed for months and how to deal
with them? I would split them into several groups:

     + annoying problems that newer worked or did not worked more
       than two years; users are already somehow used to live with
       them

       => they does not belong to MAB because they are not
       urgent by definition


     + annoying problems that affect only limited group of users
       and have workaround; they were usually added by the reporter;
       it was an attempt to get attention; they were ignored by
       developers because they see more important bugs around

       => they does not belong to MABs as well


     + hard to fix problems; some things are hard to debug and it
       is hard to find a volunteer to work on them; if they are
       really critical and need to be fixed soon

       => ESC should get noticed and find a volunteer ;-)


OK, it was theory. Now, how to do this practically? I would use the
following approach:

     1. check if the bug is still valid; if not
 
        => close it


     2. check if it was newly nominated (<2 months) and looks critical
        and urgent

        => simply move it to 4.0 MABs

     3. it does not belong to MAB as described above

        => I would remove it with some kind message about that we
        understand the annoyance but the bug does not fit the top 50
        most critical bugs

        also please, set the severity and priority more reasonable as
        suggested by
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Prioritizing_Bugs_Flowchart.jpg
       
        finally, if it looks really annoying, you might consider adding
        some experts into CC, see
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/FindTheExpert
        So, it is left on the radar.


      4. If you are in doubts; of the bug looks really critical and
         ignored for more than 2 months; please add a comment about that
         you are not sure about the status, if it belongs to MABs, etc.,
         and add "Need_Advice" whiteboard flag, see
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Whiteboard


Please, do not get scared to remove bugs from MAB. About 3000 bugs were
fixed for LO 4.1 as mentioned at
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-1-new-features-and-fixes/
Only small part of them was fixed via the MABs process. By other words,
if you remove a bug from MAB, it does not mean that it is dead ;-)

I am sorry for the long mail but I wanted to provide a more global view.
I hope that it will help.


Best Regards,
Petr


_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Tommy Tommy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:47:29 +0200, Petr Mladek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (I am sorry for duplicit posting. There was a problem in the mailing
> list setting and my mail had been eaten.)
>
>
> Tommy píše v St 24. 07. 2013 v 20:39 +0200:
>> 3.6.7 is out and will be the last 3.6 release.
>> I'm just curious to know when still living 3.6 bugs will be moved to the
>> 4.0 list.
>
> IMHO, we could start at any time now. But please, double check it with
> Joel.

yes, I'll wait his advice since he's the coordinator of the QA team.
I don't wanna make anything if he's not agree

>> I offer my help to revise some of those bugs and move them to the new  
>> list
>> if they are still valid in 4.0.4.
>
> Thanks a lot for your offer. It will be a big help!
>
> I think that we should use this opportunity also for some clean up. As
> you mention, it would be great to double check if the bugs are still
> valid. Also we should double check that they really deserve to be MABs,
> see https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Most_Annoying_Bugs
>
> The problem is that we are not that strict all the time. It helped to
> reduce useless fights about the priority. On the other hand, we should
> not keep the wrongly sorted bugs for years. If a bug is not fixed soon
> there is something smelly about it ;-)
>

yes, I've already identified a few that probably do not perfectly fit in  
the MAB category

> [snip

> Best Regards,
> Petr
>
>

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
bfoman bfoman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

In reply to this post by Petr Mladek
Petr Mladek wrote
About 3000 bugs were fixed for LO 4.1 [...] Only small part of them was fixed via the MABs process.
Hi!
Code freeze for 4.0.x branch is set to end of October and branch will be EOLed in November, just in 3-4 months. Migrating 3.6 MABs to 4.0 MAB is like watching the same movie all over again - you know what will happen. Bugs will be confirmed, got MAB status (or not) and usually nothing will happen till next MAB moving round. Probably all current MABs are reproducible in master, so should be marked against it and then backported (if possible) to 4.1.x or 4.0.x (if it is still alive).
I think that all this MAB per branch procedure should be reinvented together with the devs - the question is how to get their attention to help users by fixing major and annoying issues, even by slowing down introduction of new features.
Best regards.
 
jmadero jmadero
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

In reply to this post by Petr Mladek
On 07/27/2013 12:00 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:47:29 +0200, Petr Mladek <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> (I am sorry for duplicit posting. There was a problem in the mailing
>> list setting and my mail had been eaten.)
>>
>>
>> Tommy píše v St 24. 07. 2013 v 20:39 +0200:
>>> 3.6.7 is out and will be the last 3.6 release.
>>> I'm just curious to know when still living 3.6 bugs will be moved to
>>> the
>>> 4.0 list.
>>
>> IMHO, we could start at any time now. But please, double check it with
>> Joel.
>
> yes, I'll wait his advice since he's the coordinator of the QA team.
> I don't wanna make anything if he's not agree

Here is my suggestion -

Let's start with the really easy ones that are clearly MAB and are still
present in 4.1 (please check against 4.1, not 4.0). So bugs that are
obviously horrendous and should be solved as soon as possible:

1. Go through list of bugs on MAB and locate these obvious MAB
2. Test the bug against 4.1 release -
3. If the bug is fixed by 4.1 and you cannot reproduce - mark as WFM -
make sure to tell user in a comment your system and LibreOffice version
and tell them that if they still experience the problem in 4.1 to please
set bug back to UNCONFIRMED (since we'll need to confirm it again) and
give us his/her system info

4. If the bug is still present in 4.1 -
a. Move the bug to 4.0 MAB (not 4.1 MAB)
b. Leave a default comment that explains that we are closing 3.6 MAB due
to 3.6 EOL - say something about how we're sorry the bug wasn't tackled
in time for EOL for 3.6 but that we are keeping it on the 4.0 MAB list
because we agree that it is troublesome. You know the drill - make sure
users know we appreciate their input and that all of our devs are
working real hard to fix as many bugs as possible
c. Try to find an expert to deal with the bug - look here
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/FindTheExpert for suggestions - CC
them on the bug and see if they can tackle it or if they know someone
who would be interested in it


Let's begin with that - for more questionable MAB leave them on the list
right now - if there is really one you feel doesn't belong email the QA
mailing list - please CC me on it -- and get some feedback - likely
we'll be removing a few from the list but we need to be careful about
our wording to the bug reporter and any people cc'ed on the bug since it
did sit on the MAB list throughout 3.6 and perhaps even before that.


Let me know if there are questions - I'll be working on this a bit this
week but our UNCONFIRMED bug count is climbing a bit so I want to focus
most of my time there.



Thanks Tommy for helping out here :)


Best,
Joel

Note: As far as I know only bugs in NEW status or perhaps REOPENED
status should be on MAB list - UNCONFIRMED/NEEDINFO should not be (if I
recall correctly, definitely not UNCONFIRMED). Furthermore - if history
shows that the bug reporter put his/her own bug on the list - it is
likely we should remove it as this violates policy unless the reporter
is a developer or a member of the QA team.
_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Petr Mladek Petr Mladek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

In reply to this post by bfoman
bfoman píše v So 27. 07. 2013 v 02:44 -0700:

> Petr Mladek wrote
> > About 3000 bugs were fixed for LO 4.1 [...] Only small part of them was
> > fixed via the MABs process.
>
> Hi!
> Code freeze for 4.0.x branch is set to end of October and branch will be
> EOLed in November, just in 3-4 months. Migrating 3.6 MABs to 4.0 MAB is like
> watching the same movie all over again - you know what will happen. Bugs
> will be confirmed, got MAB status (or not) and usually nothing will happen
> till next MAB moving round.

This is why I suggested to clean up the MAB list and do not blindly move
the bugs to 4.0 MAB.

>  Probably all current MABs are reproducible in
> master, so should be marked against it and then backported (if possible) to
> 4.1.x or 4.0.x (if it is still alive).
> I think that all this MAB per branch procedure should be reinvented together
> with the devs - the question is how to get their attention to help users by
> fixing major and annoying issues, even by slowing down introduction of new
> features.

Nobody is perfect and MAB list is just a helper process. Here are some
statistics:

MAB version    nominated     fixed    open      success
3.6            245           184      61        75%
4.0            138           124      14        90%
4.1            68            59       9         87%

So, we fixed nearly 90% of MABs for 4.0 and 4.1. Is it something bad?
I do not thing so. IMHO, it is a great success.

Why is the success worse for 3.6? I think that it is because of the long
standing bugs that were moved several times. I guess that there are at
least 30 of them. If we remove them, there still will be 184 fixed MABs
and only 215 nominated. The success will be 85% and will be close to the
other MABs.

Now, the main question is what to expect from MABs. Do we expect that
all bugs will be fixed? In the ideal world yes but we do not live in the
ideal world. The resources are limited and we need to prioritize.

I agree that bugs in the MAB list are annoying but are they really the
most annoying bugs from all the reported ones? I am not sure. Especially
the ones nominated by the reporter might be.

Unfortunately, it is a bit subjective. Let me use an allegory. Try to
imagine a country with many roads. The roads need some maintenance,
otherwise there will be many holes and it will be hardly usable. Now,
there is road A on the north used by 10000 cars every day and road B on
the south used 2 cars every day. The road A is far from road B, so the
two cars almost newer use the road A. It means that the broken road B is
the most annoying road for the two drivers. Even the other drivers
understand that it is most annoying for the two drivers but they have
their own preference.

Now back to prioritization. If you have only one repairing team and both
roads are broken, what road would you repair at first?

Well, this is easy with the roads because you just count the cars. It is
more complicated with software. We do not spy users, so the number of
users is always just a best guess.

This is why we could not have super strict rules about nominated bugs.
Only the clearly wrong nominations are removed. The others are left
there to avoid useless series of fighting comments. It is better to
spend time on fixing bug than fighting for priority.

In additon: the number of affected users is only one metrics. There are
other aspects:

        + how often it is used (once a year, month, week, day, minute)
        + is there a workaround and how complicated it is to find,
          and used
        + is it regression
        + ???

In reality, there are some MABs that look the most annoying for the
reporter but others see it different. So, they are handled with lower
priority.

Of course, there are also bugs that are should get fixed with high
priority but they are hard to fix and it is hard to find a volunteer.
We need to find a way how to fix these. One possibility is to escalate
these via ESC. Another way might be to find a sponsor and paid support.
Another possibility is to do some advertising somewhere, ...

Summary:

1. I do not expect that all MABs have to be fixed because the list
   is not 100% objective and we live in a real world.

2. We need to clean up the list from time to time and the MABs move
   is a good opportunity.

3. We need to improve advertisement for bugs that are very annoying for
   most users but still somehow ignored

4. We might thing about better name. "Most Critical Bugs" might better
describe the current usage of MABs. Well, it might be a bit confusing
vs. the "critical" and "blockers" severity in bugzilla.
   

Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Tommy Tommy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:42:57 +0200, Petr Mladek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> bfoman píše v So 27. 07. 2013 v 02:44 -0700:
>> Petr Mladek wrote
>> > About 3000 bugs were fixed for LO 4.1 [...] Only small part of them  
>> was
>> > fixed via the MABs process.
>>
>> Hi!
>> Code freeze for 4.0.x branch is set to end of October and branch will be
>> EOLed in November, just in 3-4 months. Migrating 3.6 MABs to 4.0 MAB is  
>> like
>> watching the same movie all over again - you know what will happen. Bugs
>> will be confirmed, got MAB status (or not) and usually nothing will  
>> happen
>> till next MAB moving round.
>
> This is why I suggested to clean up the MAB list and do not blindly move
> the bugs to 4.0 MAB.

I agree with you. actually I'm doing critical review to get rid of some  
bugs that became WFM, bugs that do not really represent a MAB etc. etc.  
and move to the 4.0mab only those bugs which really deserve it.

>> .....
>> I think that all this MAB per branch procedure should be reinvented  
>> together
>> with the devs - the question is how to get their attention to help  
>> users by
>> fixing major and annoying issues, even by slowing down introduction of  
>> new
>> features.

let's see how things work with the 3.6 --> 4.0 migration and then decide  
if such a thing should be done again when 4.0.x reaches the EOL.

> Nobody is perfect and MAB list is just a helper process. Here are some
> statistics:
>
> MAB version    nominated     fixed    open      success
> 3.6            245           184      61        75%
> 4.0            138           124      14        90%
> 4.1            68            59       9         87%
>
> So, we fixed nearly 90% of MABs for 4.0 and 4.1. Is it something bad?
> I do not thing so. IMHO, it is a great success.

I agree that the devs did a lot of work. the fixed percentage is very high.

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
jmadero jmadero
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

In reply to this post by Petr Mladek

I agree with you. actually I'm doing critical review to get rid of some bugs that became WFM, bugs that do not really represent a MAB etc. etc. and move to the 4.0mab only those bugs which really deserve it.

.....
I think that all this MAB per branch procedure should be reinvented together
with the devs - the question is how to get their attention to help users by
fixing major and annoying issues, even by slowing down introduction of new
features.
We got the go ahead to merge them into one tracker to avoid future transitions. This being said let's finish this transition (thanks Tommy for your great work here) and I said by 4.2 we'd have some new QA procedure/guidelines to deal with MAB - adding to agenda for next call - thoughts welcome and appreciated :)


Best,
Joel

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
Petr Mladek Petr Mladek
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MAB. 3.6 to 4.0 migration. When?

In reply to this post by Tommy
Tommy píše v St 31. 07. 2013 v 21:22 +0200:
> On Tue, 30
> > This is why I suggested to clean up the MAB list and do not blindly move
> > the bugs to 4.0 MAB.
>
> I agree with you. actually I'm doing critical review to get rid of some  
> bugs that became WFM, bugs that do not really represent a MAB etc. etc.  
> and move to the 4.0mab only those bugs which really deserve it.

Great. Thanks a lot for working on it.


Best Regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
Mail address: [hidden email]
Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/