Important bugs list, "The List", version 2

Tanstaafl tanstaafl at libertytrek.org
Wed Dec 26 11:37:12 UTC 2012


Anyone? Is there even an official 'path' to getting one of these on the 
official list?

Would appreciate a response, even if it is 'go away'...

On 2012-12-21 8:49 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl at libertytrek.org> wrote:
> Back in October, I sent an email asking how to add nominations for
> papercuts...
>
> I have 3 near and dear to my heart...
>
> I added them to the wiki as nominations, but no response...
>
> Any chance of getting these approved/added to the official list?
>
> Here they are again:
>
> "Option to use same credentials for outgoing as incoming"
> (cannot imagine why this one wouldn't be brain-dead simple)
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543827
>
> "Make column pickers sticky/persistent (menu should behave like a panel,
> i.e. stay open for selecting multiple columns until user clicks outside
> or ESC)"
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=545906
>
> and
>
> "more meaningful status bar information when mass moving messages
> between IMAP accounts"
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=644713
>
> Thanks as always to the devs, and Merry Christmas to all...
>
> On 2012-12-20 4:48 PM, Wayne Mery (d531) <vseerror at Lehigh.EDU> wrote:
>> On 9/21/2012 6:23 PM, Wayne Mery (d531) wrote:
>>> The QA breakout at mozcamp [1] discussed making a list of high value,
>>> i.e. "most important" bugs list for developer attention and action. This
>>> is to be a small, selective set of bugs, culled from a larger set of
>>> bugs, to serve as a managable "grab bag" for developers.  The idea is,
>>> as bugs on the list are fixed they are removed from the list, and other
>>> bugs added to the list.  ("important bugs" is not an official name - so
>>> let's not haggle yet over names)
>>>
>>> This is not a list to make everyone happy; not every user will see one
>>> of their issues here. The goal is to tackle a focused list, and add to
>>> and subtract from it as progress is made.
>>>
>>> Per the meeting, there are 4 dimensions to categorizing bugs for this
>>> list:
>>> 1. How many people are likely to be affected
>>> 2. How serious is the effect when it occurs (workaround? consequences)
>>>     [severity as defined by bugzilla]
>>> 3. How much effort to fix this bug?
>>> 4. How reproducible it is
>>>
>>> To summarize what I think is the current situation
>>>
>>> #1 is going to be a judgment call by QA, in come cases informed by
>>> feedback from support forum - feedback which we currently don't have
>>> except the unweighted [gs] whiteboard item
>>>
>>> #2 we know from bugzilla - unless the severity setting is incorrect.
>>> When you touch a bug you should check the severity and change it if you
>>> feel it isn't accurate. Ref:
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity
>>>
>>> #3 can be judged by developers, and for some bugs probably by trigers.
>>> To what extent it affects whether a bug gets on the list remains to be
>>> seen.
>>>
>>> #4 well, presumably every confirmed bug is reproducible to some extent.
>>> But we know this is not true. If we continue to feel this is an
>>> important factor to a bug being on the list, know that it will require
>>> *signficant* manpower to accomplish as it will require reasessing a high
>>> percentage of our bugs.
>>>
>>> It will be weeks I think until we are in a position to create a list
>>> based on the above 4 elements and a process to go with it. And even then
>>> it will likely be iterative - starting with an imperfect process that
>>> doesn't cover all the criteria and working toward a better process, that
>>> may or may not cover all of the criteria.
>>>
>>> So I have created an interim ~top 30 list: http://tinyurl.com/bq5xcxf
>>>
>>> Most of these bugs are deserving of attention for multiple reasons. I
>>> used criteria #1 and #2. For #3 I have merely eyeballed and made a best
>>> judgement that the bug (or it's blockers in the case of a meta) probably
>>> doesn't require more than a weeks time or major architecutral changes. I
>>> have not attempted to assess "reproducibility" in this cut.  I created
>>> this list a week ago when I was still sick, so I don't claim it is
>>> unbiased or proper in any particular way - it is my interpretation of a
>>> top 30.  But I will welcome private email as to the suitability of any
>>> bug to be on the list - and summarize later for the group so it can be
>>> used to improve whatever future process we put in place.
>>>
>>> For my own sanity I excluded large numbers of bugs, like address book
>>> and filters because the former will hopefully be revamped in the next
>>> year/in our lifetime, and the later because it has already been heavily
>>> triaged in recent months due to the efforts of aceman and others. I
>>> excluded international, build, security either because I have no
>>> experience in those areas or because the area is highly specialized and
>>> likely not of interest to the average developer. I excluded
>>> severity=minor and severity=normal.
>>>
>>> Many are dataloss or datalossy. Some are assigned and/or well in
>>> progress. Many are not.
>>>
>>> - I heavily favored bugs that have recent activity (on a sliding scale),
>>> let's say the last 120 days.
>>> - I have not yet examined most hang and performance bugs - but I am
>>> pretty sure we have no hang bugs that are pervasive amongst users
>>> - I did not use prior bug lists (for example paper-cuts or various
>>> wanted flags) to either include or exclude any bugs.
>>>
>>> Use in good health.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/tb-planning/nq3K1pIGTZg/RblSSfCbK7gJ
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just in time for the holidays...
>>
>> version 2 of The List: http://tinyurl.com/bvzc7nt     22 bugs
>> version 2 with papercuts*: http://tinyurl.com/c59k55b 27 bugs
>>
>> This list represents some of our most pressing needs. Missing however
>> are any maildir bugs which probably should be added RSN if there is to
>> be any hope of getting users to adopt maildir in the TB24 era.
>>
>> The List version 1 was 32 bugs. 12 closed as follows: 9 fixed, 2 WFM, 1
>> dup to a fixed bug.
>>
>> In version 2, 787618 is removed and added to tb-enterprise. four are
>> added: 794303, 794303, 815012, 471492.  These were culled from confirmed
>> bugs only created since The List version 1 as follows:
>> severity=major+critical, regressions with sev=normal.
>>
>>
>> * Note: it is still the case that not all papercut bugs are labeled as
>> such in bugzilla. So "version 2 with papercuts" is incomplete with
>> respect to papercuts.  It would be good for someone to take on that task.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning




More information about the tb-planning mailing list