W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Re: [meeting] notes from 2004-09-28

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:03:17 +0200
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <418aa307.653609050@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* olivier Thereaux wrote:
>* Action Items review and discussion
>- The potential "SVG icons" are being reviewed. Bjoern notes that there 
>are still issues with IE [1] with the png's generated from them, and 
>suggests merging the SVG style with the one at [2], which uses the 
>"proper" red and similar 3D button look.

Under W3C Comm-Team review, most qa-dev participants (and the Validator
community) did not have a chance to review them yet as the graphics are
member-only. I think at least the qa-dev participants should have a
chance to review them before we replace the old ones. I also think that
there should not be changes to the actual icons except the neccessary
bug fixes; if there are we should discuss whether this improves them or
whether we can do anything to make them more similar. For this it would
be helpful if the Comm-Team could provide the old master images and/or
information about the old generation process.

>Our usage of bugzilla is rather particular, in that we are using the 
>qa-contact field as a way to broadcast information on the bugs being 
>discussed, and using the "owner" as a default-owner-plus-qa-contact. 
>This sometimes makes it difficult to know whether an ASSIGNED issue is 
>being worked on or only acknowledged by the "owner". It is advised to 
>at least drop a note to the owner before starting work on their issues.

I would rather say that our usage of Bugzilla is not very useful in
general, currently it is not much more than a collection of thoughts
about possible enhancements and some known issues. I think we would
benefit from a clearer, generally agreed to bugzilla management; we
should have documentation on what it means for a "bug" to be assigned,
for example. The same would go for the various Severity settings, for
example, for http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=117 I would
set this to enhancement or trivial at best, certainly not blocker, it
does not block development and/or testing in any meaningful way.

What I specifically want to get out of bugzilla is to be able to quickly
get an overview of the things that need to be addressed before we can
make the next release to allow developers to focus their limited
development time on the more important things.

Here it would make sense to me to use the Target Milestone setting along
with "release meta-bugs" and blockers only in such a way that they
represent at least rough consensus among active participants; what we
currently do, nominating large numbers of bugs for every release or
milestone and change this nomination later does not seem to be very

Some bugs had a target milestone of 0.6.x, have 0.7.0 now and will soon
have 0.8.0 (and then probably 0.8.1 or 0.9.0 or something like that), I
do not really understand how that helps us making progress; it would
make more sense to me to keep the field untouched if it does not mean
much anyway. I am thus vehemently opposed to Terje's proposal to
re-target all these bugs to 0.8.0.

I consider a "release" a means to make improvements available to the
community while Terje seems to think of it more along the lines of a
great opportunity to fix most of the bugs and make most improvements;
there is a middle-ground between these views, I just consider that an
optional feature in our release process and would prefer maintenance
of it to happen outside of Bugzilla, the Wiki for example would be a
better place.
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 13:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:47 UTC