[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Work done on OO.org bugs [1st week update]


Statistics for the first week for this bug triage:

24 bugs have been confirmed to be fixed in more recent versions, and therefor were closed.

10 bug were reproduced in more recent versions (2.0.4 or 2.2.1), they were taken out from the old bugs list.

132 are still waiting for an update from their submitters.

If you want to help with checking bugs, you can see the list here:

Lior Kaplan wrote:

After having lunch with Chris Halls at Debconf7, and hearing that help is needed with OO.org bugs [1], I decided to give a little help.

1. 26 bugs got version info added (hence all these found messages to the list). 2. Two bugs were closed (well, nothing special, just obvious bugs I noticed). 3. All bugs which are reported to a version prior to 2.0.0-1 were user tagged [2]. We have 169 bugs there, the most recent one is 1 year and 70 days old.

I intend to send closing warnings to all of them. And later closing them unless users (or someone else) will report the bug is still relevant in an more recent OO.org version (hopefully 2.2.1, but 2.0.4 will also be fine).

First warning - July 1st
Second warning - July 15th
Third (and final) warning - July 31st
Actual closing - August 15th.

This give users 6 weeks to answer the warnings, which should be reasonable enough for people without permanent internet connection, people on vacation etc.

Please let me know if you have comments about the process.

In the future, I intend to do the same for version which are smaller than the sarge version (2.0.4.dfsg.2-5etch1). After that, I want to start doing some periodic checks for all remaining bugs, verifying they exist in our latest SID version. But let's not jump too much a head (;

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/419523
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org;tag=oo.org-pre-2.0-bug


Lior Kaplan

GPG fingerprint:
C644 D0B3 92F4 8FE4 4662  B541 1558 9445 99E8 1DA0

Reply to: