QA proposal for bugs

[James Richard Tyrer]

Matt Rogers wrote:

> Sorry, but I fail to understand why you're so hung up on verifying that 
> bugs have actually been fixed.

It is simple.  Bugs get marked as fixed when they are not fixed.  Part of
the problem there is that they are not properly confirmed either.

> The biggest help anyone in the quality team could do at the moment with 
> regard to bugs is to take an app in bugzilla, go through all the bugs, 
> using the wiki page at 
> http://wiki.kdenews.org/tiki-index.php?page=Bug+Triage as a guide.
> 
Yes, we need that as well.  I have done some of that in the past and I 
guess I should try to start again -- do my quota every week.

> We have a massive amount of duplicated and/or unreproducable bugs.

I believe that I have addressed some of that as well.  If you try to add a 
test case to bugs, you will also weed out the ones that are unreproducible.

Any better method to find duplicates would be most welcome.  Probably, some 
improvements in the short descriptions would facilitate this.

> Also, crash bugs without valid stacktraces should be closed if you can't
>  reproduce it.

Action should be taken on *all* unreproducible bugs.  I would suggest 
contacting the original reporter if you can't reproduce it and if (s)he 
can't help you develop a test case for the current BRANCH or HEAD, then it 
is useless and should be CLOSED.
> 
> While I don't see a problem with your proposal, it would be more 
> realistic at this point in time to do the above.

You are certainly correct that there also other things that need to be done 
with the bug data base.  I also believe that a clear differentiation 
between HEAD and BRANCH bug reports will also help with some of that.

--
JRT