RFC Operation Spamzilla

Hi all,

here is an urgent request for comments. We still have ~2400 bugs in state NEW
from the pre-Bugzilla 4.0 days. Back then we had no initial state UNCONFIRMED,
so unfortunately they started with NEW. This is changed now for new bugs, but
the old ones are still in state NEW because we did not want to spam the
subscribers of 2400 bugs just by changing those bugs. This leaves us in the
unfortunate situation to having to check dates etc. to see what the status
really means, which is really bad.

So here is my proposal: I want to batch change all those old unconfirmed bugs
(without the now obsolete CONFIRMED in whiteboard status) to state NEEDINFO.
We can then be sure that a bug in state NEW is actually confirmed. This is
urgent, because I think we have a good opportunity right now.
I want to do the bulk change with this comment:

[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 prerelease.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

By doing this, we would:
 a) get our bug data consistent (all NEW bug would have basic confirmation)
 b) lure a lot more people into participating in the beta1 bug hunt
 c) do so without spamming a lot of people in vain.
 d) could get rid of the confusing UNCONFIRMED,CONFIRMED tags in whiteboard status

To be effective for the bug hunting session this would have to be done rather
fast. Thus, if nobody vetos this, I would do that tommorrow in ~500 bug
batches.

Objections? Vetos? Comments?

Best,

Bjoern

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:33:44 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thus, if nobody vetos this, I would do that tommorrow in ~500 bug
> batches.
>
> Objections? Vetos? Comments?
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>


A dirty job but somebody has to do it...
go ahead!!!  :-)

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On 22.12.2011 22.33, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> [This is an automated message.]
> This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
> started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The bug is
> changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from NEEDINFO back
> to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 prerelease.
> Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1

Shouldn't it be 3.5.0 Beta 2 and not Beta 1?

--
RN
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> So here is my proposal: I want to batch change all those old unconfirmed bugs
> (without the now obsolete CONFIRMED in whiteboard status) to state NEEDINFO.
>
Sounds very worthwhile. Go for it! :)

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Niko Rönkkö wrote:
> Shouldn't it be 3.5.0 Beta 2 and not Beta 1?
>
Yep, though in theory, Beta2 could be a disaster & we don't publish
it (not likely). Plan was I think to wait for feedback on the
pre-release builds & then adapt the messaging ...

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Hi Niko,

Niko Rönkkö wrote (23-12-11 00:03)

>> Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/BugHunting_Session_3.5.0.-1
>
> Shouldn't it be 3.5.0 Beta 2 and not Beta 1?

Both are fine.
I guess the beta 2 will be available when we have the bug-hunting
session. But testing right now, can be done on beta 1..

( Please note that the ".-1" in the wiki link is referring to the fact
that there will be a ".-2" bug-hunting event, expected to be done with
RC1 :-)  )

Cheers,

--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Bjoern Michaelsen schrieb:

> here is an urgent request for comments. We still have ~2400 bugs in state NEW

Hi Bjoern,

of course I see the problem, but I have absolutely no problem with that
fact, because I use a query basing on my experience. You find it here:
<http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage#Process>
The hit quote for bugs needing "maintenance" is neaby 100% vor me.

> So here is my proposal: I want to batch change all those old unconfirmed bugs
> (without the now obsolete CONFIRMED in whiteboard status) to state NEEDINFO.

If you want to do the bulk change, you should avoid to change hundreds
of "Really NEW" old bugs to NEEDINFO.

I recommend only to modify bugs what are NEW and fulfill some additional
criteria (no user with QA-Experience is involved), what leads to this query:
<https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?type1-0-0=notsubstring&type0-1-0=nowordssubstr&list_id=27519&field0-1-0=commenter&field0-0-0=commenter&query_based_on=LibO_Unconfirmed_4&emailtype1=exact&chfieldto=2011-10-17&query_format=advanced&emailassigned_to1=1&chfield=%5BBug%20creation%5D&value0-2-0=jeffdchang%40gmail.com%20%20yfjiang%40novell.com&chfieldfrom=2010-10-01&value0-1-0=andre.schnabel%40gmx.net%20drew%40baseanswers.com%20%20%20maand%40gmx.de%20%20wope%40gmx.com%20%20baur.steven%40googlemail.com%20%20dmx404%40gmail.com&value1-0-0=CONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&field0-2-0=commenter&email1=libreoffice-bugs%40lists.freedesktop.org&type0-0-0=nowordssubstr&value0-0-0=LibreOffice%40bielefeldundbuss.de%20%20%20detective.conan.1412%40gmail.com%20%20iamtester8%40gmail.com%20jbf.faure%40orange.fr%20%20jr%40natural-computing.de%20%20fyvaao%40ya.ru%20%20vitriol_vitriol%40katamail.com%20%20gerard.fargeot%40orange.fr%20%20bugs%40eikota.de&type0-2-0=nowordssubstr&field1-0-0=status_whiteb

oard&product=LibreOffice>

I also added the query link under
<http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugTriage#Process> "And this Query
only shows ..." because mail clients might break that long link.

It's intended that no developers are included because mostly they only
contribute some useful information, but will not continue "maintenance"
for those bugs.

And -  may be you will get some indignant comments because of Bugs
30876, 31022, 31055, 33232  ;-)

Please involve [hidden email] into such discussions!

Best regards

Rainer
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Hi Rainer,

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:34:12AM +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> of course I see the problem, but I have absolutely no problem with
> that fact, because I use a query basing on my experience.

Yes, but having to rely on somebody elses experience is a big barrier to
newcomers and we should keep needed knowledge as open and as broad as possible.

> I recommend only to modify bugs what are NEW and fulfill some
> additional criteria (no user with QA-Experience is involved), what
> leads to this query:
>
+<https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?type1-0-0=notsubstring&type0-1-0=nowordssubstr&list_id=27519&field0-1-0=commenter&field0-0-0=commenter&query_based_on=LibO_Unconfirmed_4&emailtype1=exact&ch
+fieldto=2011-10-17&query_format=advanced&emailassigned_to1=1&chfield=%5BBug%20creation%5D&value0-2-0=jeffdchang%40gmail.com%20%20yfjiang%40novell.com&chfieldfrom=2010-10-01&value0-1-0=andre.schnabel
+%40gmx.net%20drew%40baseanswers.com%20%20%20maand%40gmx.de%20%20wope%40gmx.com%20%20baur.steven%40googlemail.com%20%20dmx404%40gmail.com&value1-0-0=CONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&field0-2-0=commenter&emai
+l1=libreoffice-bugs%40lists.freedesktop.org&type0-0-0=nowordssubstr&value0-0-0=LibreOffice%40bielefeldundbuss.de%20%20%20detective.conan.1412%40gmail.com%20%20iamtester8%40gmail.com%20jbf.faure%40or
+ange.fr%20%20jr%40natural-computing.de%20%20fyvaao%40ya.ru%20%20vitriol_vitriol%40katamail.com%20%20gerard.fargeot%40orange.fr%20%20bugs%40eikota.de&type0-2-0=nowordssubstr&field1-0-0=status_whiteb
> oard&product=LibreOffice>

Yes, actually I want to use a query like that. Up to now I used the one at:

 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport_Details#Whiteboard

but I will go with the one from the BugTriage page now.

> And -  may be you will get some indignant comments because of Bugs
> 30876, 31022, 31055, 33232  ;-)

Even if there are ~20-50 bugs that would need to be changed back, it is a lot
better than having >2000 (of 6400 total) in an inconsistent state.

> Please involve [hidden email] into such discussions!

Why arent you on nabble.documentfoundation.org btw? I keep forgetting about
that list for that reason.

Best,

Bjoern
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:32:25PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
Done. Next step would be removing all the "CONFIRMED", "UNCONFIRMED" cruft in
Whiteboard Status, as it is now:

- redundant
- obsolete
- confusing to newcomers

Best,

Bjoern
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Hi all,

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 10:56:08PM +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Done. Next step would be removing all the "CONFIRMED", "UNCONFIRMED" cruft in
> Whiteboard Status ...

Also done. Please refrain from using Keyword "NEEDINFO" and Whiteboard Status
"CONFIRMED", "infoprovider:" and "UNCONFIRMED", and use the bug status instead:

- UNCONFIRMED and NEEDINFO are both considered unconfirmed.
- NEW is now considered confirmed.
- instead of using infoprovider, simply put the provider in a bug comment and
  set the state to NEEDINFO. If you want to be very explicit about the provider
  assign the bug to the one who needs to provide the info -- there is no rule
  that only developers are allowed in the assign_to field. ;)

It would be great, if the localized wiki pages about bug triage could be
updated accordingly.

Best,

Bjoern
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Bjoern Michaelsen schrieb:

> Done.

Hi,

I see, got 241 automated message mails. Some of them are correct
reminders (I would have revived actions in some more quiet times), half
of them only noise. For example critical bugs blocking Bug 35673 have
been set to Needinfo.

Most of my search and statistic tools now are broken and have to be
adapted.

I disagree with any further bulk changes if the query has not been
reviewed here. We are not in a hurry, and 2 days fine tuning would have
saved some discomfort and trouble.

I corrected Status for
Bug 36482, 38177, 40651, 37529, 36843, 36662,

41089, already have been corrected by others.

I will try to review 5...10 of those changes per day, will be back for
normal work in February. This action forces me to do lots of work now
that I planned to do when 3.5 release has been shipped


Rainer
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Hi Rainer,

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 09:39:40AM +0100, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> I disagree with any further bulk changes if the query has not been
> reviewed here. We are not in a hurry, and 2 days fine tuning would
> have saved some discomfort and trouble.

There wont be any more. The aim was to get rid of
CONFIRMED/UNCONFIRMED/NEEDINFO in keywords and whiteboard status and that has
been achieved. Waiting two more days would have been too late to promote the
bug hunting session.

Best,

Bjoern
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice