Hi all,
Minutes from our QA Meeting are here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2014/April_21
Our next meeting will be on May 5th. Agenda is available here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Meetings/2014/May_05
Cheers,
--R
Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable.
- Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a
standardized vocabulary
- Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one
topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as
Terrence shows here 
)
- Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How
does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker?
Best,
Bjoern
From the QA meeting minutes:
(*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla
(*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a
< similar one (e.g. "image" -> "picture" or "graphic")
I have been thinking about the possibility of canned pieces of queries
to ease searching for a particular kind of crash. I mean ...
(*) A segmentaion fault is a segfault is a SIGSEGV is a signal 11.
(*) A crash may be a segmentation fault, except when it is something
else. Something else could be an assertion, SIGABRT, or signal 6,
It could even be a hang. And lots of reports say nothing more
specific than "crash".
and so forth.
I have not said anything here before because I hoped to make a more
concrete suggestion. But if we assume standardized words in the
summary or whiteboard or keyword (without thinking about how that
standardization happens), things become very simple.
HTH,
Terry.
> From the QA meeting minutes:
>
> > (*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla
> > (*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a
> < similar one (e.g. "image" -> "picture" or "graphic")Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable.
- Reporters (end users) will most likely ignore an attempt at using a
standardized vocabulary
Absolutely right. In fact, we should not even mention it to a new
reporter until the need arises.
- Triagers will most likely have a good grip on all the words used for one
topic and might even derive additional information from the nuances (as
Terrence shows here
Triagers would be the first to apply standardized vocabulary.
Subject, of course, to us wanting not to discourage people who a just
not interested in vocabulary. The goal is to be able to ignore
uninteresting bugs more efficiently.
- Ultimately: Who should be the consumer of these queries/standardisation? How
does it help devs to address the impportant and urgent bugs quicker?
I see the primary user being a triager (or maybe a reporter) looking
for duplicates.
<sky color"blue">
Developers do not matter, because we (QA) are going to do such a
good job that no developer ever has to look at a bug she is not
interested in and which is ready for her attention.
</sky>
Hey, I admit that that is "blue sky". How far can we expect to
advance toward that? How much value is there in the
yet-to-be-demonstrated incomplete result? I do not know, but the
sheer number of words I am writing suggests the improbability of a
good result. Sigh.
Perhaps the detail page for a bug should have a button meaning "I am a
developer, and I have looked at this bug, and I am sorry that I spent
my time this way." Well, a buttopn plus the opportunity to say what
enticed him to go there is the first place.
HTH,
Terry.
Bjoern Michaelsen schreef op 21/04/14 23:57:
From the QA meeting minutes:
(*) SUGGESTION: Standardization of our summary field for Bugzilla
(*) Or: When searching for one phrase, display results from a< similar one (e.g. "image" -> "picture" or "graphic")
Hmm, Im uncertain as to what the goal is here and if its reachable.
I did this suggestion due the fact a couple of days ago:
I found a new bug report I knew it already was reported earlier (dupe).
while searching for a bugs with summary 'color', I didn't found the
dupe. After 5 minutes I thought about searching for 'coloUr' which
showed the original bug ...
So my goal was to ease a bit our search for dupes.
Kind regards,
Joren