15:00:45 #startmeeting 15:00:45 Meeting started Tue Feb 28 15:00:45 2017 UTC. The chair is x1sc0. Plugin info at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:45 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 15:01:20 #topic rollcall 15:01:22 hola 15:01:42 hola ;-) 15:01:53 let's wait 5 minutes to see if someone else shows up 15:03:15 hi bearon 15:03:20 hey 15:03:26 i'm in time it seems :) 15:03:38 yes, you are 15:03:55 just waiting a few minutes for others to join 15:06:49 ok, so let's get started 15:07:06 buovjaga sent me a couple of topics to discuss 15:07:15 so let's start with them 15:07:26 #topic removal of PLEASETEST status 15:07:49 buovjaga, can you share a link where this status is used? 15:08:17 x1sc0: it is not used 15:08:24 that is the problem 15:08:40 x1sc0: check it out https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/editworkflow.cgi 15:09:07 you can go from PLEASETEST to RESOLVED, but you cannot go to PLEASETEST from anywhere 15:09:30 #info https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/editworkflow.cgi 15:09:33 oh, I see 15:09:34 a person on -dev wanted to test Android issues and tried searching for PLEASETEST.. I had never even noticed we had the status 15:09:57 * cloph lurking only 15:10:14 no, I didn't know it neither 15:10:26 i did, but didn't care ;) 15:10:39 it had no impact 15:10:44 bearon: you neglected your citizen duty :) 15:10:45 ok, I can take a look at it and see if it can be removed, probably it's easy if no bugs are using it 15:10:54 it is mentioned here https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status 15:11:04 no bugs have ever used it, I checked (status changed to..) 15:11:21 #info https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Status 15:11:22 i'd think changing the note to not use it would be easier :) 15:11:46 if you say it is a problem that it is not used, do you want to imply that you want to keep it? 15:12:13 cloph: that's not what he meant 15:12:35 you never can be sure.... 15:13:42 if the topic is "removal of PLEASETEST status" it is pretty clear.. 15:14:07 actually, I should be able to change a RESOLVED bug to PLEASETEST, shouldn't I? 15:14:39 x1sc0: so why can't you? 15:14:45 because I don't see how to change a bug to PLEASETEST 15:14:49 to quickly test https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105934 15:14:51 LibreOffice-Writer normal/medium RESOLVED DUPLICATE (of 105913) Some Diacritic positioning with Graphite font not working with LO 5.3 15:14:52 bug 105934: LibreOffice-graphics stack major/high NEW Calculating character widths is broken for Indic text with some fonts in 5.3 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105913 15:15:48 buovjaga, do you see it in tdf#105934 ? 15:15:50 LibreOffice-Writer normal/medium RESOLVED DUPLICATE (of 105913) Some Diacritic positioning with Graphite font not working with LO 5.3 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105934 15:15:51 LibreOffice-graphics stack major/high NEW Calculating character widths is broken for Indic text with some fonts in 5.3 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105913 15:16:02 x1sc0: no, why should I? It is impossible to use it 15:16:29 ok, I thought I could go from RESOLVED to PLEASETEST 15:16:43 nevertheless, I'll try to delete it from bugzilla 15:16:54 just because the topic is something doesn't mean someone has another opinion. If you'd think that then there would be no point in neven discussing it as a topic. 15:17:43 cloph: discuss it with myself? 15:17:50 why would I disagree with myself? 15:18:31 a) it wasn't you who set the topic/triggered topic change, b) your statement was ambiguous, c) it was clarified already. Move on. 15:18:51 a) I proposed the topic b) I said "problem c) you reacted to "problem" 15:19:22 bullshitting again, going back to lurking, have fun going in circles then. 15:19:52 cloph: I am not bullshitting you wtf. 15:19:57 please stop this 15:20:35 I agree with buovjaga we should remove it, bearon, do you agree as well? 15:20:45 buovjaga: i think the problems was that it was not clear you proposed the topic 15:21:10 "buovjaga sent me a couple of topics to discuss " 15:21:13 etc. 15:21:29 x1sc0: i have no preference, it causes no harm this way, but if it can be easily removed, sure 15:21:53 ok, thanks 15:21:55 again: I asked, my question was answered, no reason to shit on it anymore. 15:22:23 #todo: x1sc0: Remove the status from bugzilla 15:22:33 let's move on to the next topic 15:22:40 proposed by buovjaga as well 15:22:56 #topic: improvements to the bug submission form (user profile: safe mode, severity:how to deal with the fact that we lock them) 15:23:20 buovjaga, can you explain you idea? 15:23:50 in the guided submission form there is an optional field for profile reset 15:24:08 now that we have 5.3 we could mention safe mode 15:24:34 #idea: now that we have 5.3 we could mention safe mode 15:24:38 of course it is mentioned in the wiki page.. (btw. the anchor link could be updated) 15:25:00 anchor link ? 15:25:13 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile#Resolving_corruption 15:26:14 which link do you mean ? 15:26:21 https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile#Resolving_corruption 15:26:55 If you're seeing a bug on just one machine or one version of LibreOffice, try following our instructions for resolving User Profile corruption and see if that fixes the problem! 15:27:25 the anchor is broken because the wiki page headings were changed 15:28:04 ahh ok, I see 15:28:19 #todo: update anchor link in submission form 15:28:34 in what sense is it broken? The link you gave works 15:28:39 #todo: add field for profile reset 15:28:49 cloph, the one in https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice&format=guided 15:28:54 cloph: the link in the submission form is outdated 15:29:03 it points to https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile#Resolving_corruption_in_the_user_profile 15:29:12 yes 15:29:18 instead of changing the link or changing the header, you could also just add an additional anchor in the wikipage 15:30:12 cloph, I think adding the field for the profile reset is a good idea, so I can update the link in the form at the same time 15:30:14 after 5.2 is EOL we can edit the section in the form to only speak about safe mode 15:30:47 but a field does not need to be added, it is there 15:31:01 I was quoting from the description 15:31:33 yes, it's there 15:32:40 now, for the severity, I didn't test as a regular user, but I assume it allows to select the major and critical ones from the dropdown 15:32:41 ok, I'll take a look, whether changing the form or adding an additional anchor to the wiki 15:33:31 while we're talking about the bug submission form, could the initial table with the most common bugs be reworked? 15:33:54 yeah steve-_-[m] would agree, I think 15:34:06 because the table contradicts with what the note above it says 15:34:53 yes, there's a redmine for that, it's just, I haven't spent time on it since I added the table 15:35:07 ok, thanks 15:35:30 * x1sc0 searching for the ticket 15:35:48 re: severity, I guess I could create a test user and try out what happens 15:36:04 https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/2081 15:36:05 redmine: »Improve BZ wizard« in Infrastructure (Task for Xisco Fauli Tarazona) [New] 15:36:14 News from tdfnew: [Bug 106236] PDURATION function Constraints: rate > 0 15:36:34 buovjaga, if you see that it's possible, could you please put a comment to the redmine ticket ? 15:36:36 buovjaga: when i was first using it last year, i think i could only select up to normal, but of course can't say for sure now 15:37:20 ok I requested new user, waiting for email 15:37:34 ok, let's move on meanwhile 15:37:52 bearon, is there anything you would like to discuss today? 15:38:24 if not, I have a couple of things to say as well 15:38:34 x1sc0: i was wondering about the lately frequently used highest/critical prioritization 15:39:26 and am not sure if some of those bugs are worth highest priority, even if they're crashes 15:39:35 and regressions (i think they were) 15:40:03 even if they are regressions and crashes? :) 15:40:13 yes, it's true I've been raising the priority of some bugs 15:40:31 because some only occur in very specific, rare cases 15:40:36 but because they're crashes 15:41:26 anyway, I think I've only raised those which were well triaged 15:41:48 IMHO, crash + regression = highest 15:42:12 sooner or later someone should take a look at them and fix them 15:43:01 that's certainly true 15:44:24 i'd consider factoring it how much it affects users (which can hardly be measured) 15:44:24 I've been going through the list of crashes these days 15:44:48 anyway, that was just a thought from me, no big deal 15:45:18 normally I bring new crashes to the esc meeting 15:45:44 and since there're no new crashes this week, I'm looking into some old ones, to see if they can get fixed 15:46:00 bearon, the only measure we have right now is the crashreport page 15:46:25 i just would prefer avoiding that bugs that probably no/very few users encounter, and don't affect normal usage be given too much attention 15:47:22 bearon, ok, please, if you find any which in your opinion I raised incorrectly, please let me know 15:47:36 at least i consider entering 1000000000 in a field where it's not a sane entry not affecting normal usage :) 15:48:14 bearon, but it's a regression 15:48:37 true 15:48:47 no biggies, we can move on 15:48:57 ok 15:49:22 but again, if you find a bug that should be highest, please let me know 15:49:32 s/should/shouldn't 15:49:40 okay, i will 15:49:50 in either direction :) 15:50:01 so, speaking on that regard 15:50:07 #topic crashes 15:50:31 this is the list of crashes we have nowadays 15:50:37 #link: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&list_id=678995&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&short_desc=crash&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr 15:50:53 actually, not all are crashes 15:51:00 but 90% 15:51:25 and there're some I can't test myself 15:51:48 so I leave the link to those I can't test, in case you can, and you feel like doing so 15:52:10 MAC OS 15:52:17 x1sc0: in what way do these have to be tested? because they're all NEW 15:52:26 #link https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&list_id=678968&op_sys=Mac%20OS%20X%20%28All%29&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&short_desc=crash&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr 15:52:41 bearon, retested I meant 15:53:43 x86-64 15:53:47 #link https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&list_id=679000&query_format=advanced&rep_platform=x86-64%20%28AMD64%29&resolution=---&short_desc=crash&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr 15:54:13 bearon, or even updating the summary if they don't crash anymore 15:54:23 ok 15:55:26 and the last thing I wanted to mention 15:55:59 is about LOKView bugs 15:56:06 do you know how to test them ? 15:56:23 we have some unconfirmed ones... 15:57:29 x1sc0: i can ask 15:58:43 bearon, there's one meta bugs as well: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106166 15:58:45 bug 106166: LibreOffice-LibreOffice normal/medium NEW [META] LOKDocView bugs 15:59:04 bearon, ok, it would be good to have some info about how to test them 15:59:11 or what to do with those bugs 16:00:08 x1sc0: pranavk seems to know how to handle those, i'll ask him 16:00:20 bearon, ok, thanks 16:00:29 so, it's 16:00 already 16:00:43 and I think we're done with the meeting 16:00:52 thank you guys 16:01:02 #endmeeting