Dear Bug Submitter,

This bug has been in NEEDINFO status with no change for at least 6 months. Please provide the requested information as soon as possible and mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED. Due to regular bug tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDINFO status with no change in 30 days the QA team will close the bug as INVALID due to lack of needed information.

For more information about our NEEDINFO policy please read the wiki located here: 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FDO/NEEDINFO

If you have already provided the requested information, please mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED so that the QA team knows that the bug is ready to be confirmed.


Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone!


Warm Regards,
QA Team

Dear Bug Submitter,

Please read this message in its entirety before proceeding.

Your bug report is being closed as INVALID due to inactivity and a lack of information which is needed in order to accurately reproduce and confirm the problem. We encourage you to retest your bug against the latest release. If the issue is still present in the latest stable release, we need the following information (please ignore any that you've already provided):

a) Provide details of your system including your operating system and the latest version of LibreOffice that you have confirmed the bug to be present

b) Provide easy to reproduce steps – the simpler the better

c) Provide any test case(s) which will help us confirm the problem

d) Provide screenshots of the problem if you think it might help

e) Read all comments and provide any requested information

Once all of this is done, please set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and we will attempt to reproduce the issue. 
Please do not:
a) respond via email 
b) update the version field in the bug or any of the other details on the top section of FDO

NEEDINFO for the code pointers.

FWIW I've never heard of NEEDINFO being used for code pointers. This is precisely what needsDevEval is for and placing it in NEEDINFO risks the bug being closed as INVALID after 7 months from auto purge. A lot of the times needsDevEval lasts a year or longer just because experienced devs are really busy and can't find the time to dig into code to give code pointers.

Just my thoughts - not sure how NEEDINFO adds anything on top of "needsDevEval" in keywords

(In reply to Joel Madero from comment #11)
> FWIW I've never heard of NEEDINFO being used for code pointers. This is
> precisely what needsDevEval is for and placing it in NEEDINFO risks the bug
> being closed as INVALID after 7 months from auto purge. A lot of the times
> needsDevEval lasts a year or longer just because experienced devs are really
> busy and can't find the time to dig into code to give code pointers.
> 
> Just my thoughts - not sure how NEEDINFO adds anything on top of
> "needsDevEval" in keywords

It was the ESC decision how to handle proposed easyhacks. Samuel also warned about this procedure. We could introduce PROPOSED_EASYHACK.

CC'ing Jan.

Okay - I don't follow any of those decisions any more. Couple notes then:

1) ESC or someone else should figure out what to do about needsDevEval (which again is literally the exact same thing in this case); 
2) Markus before was really against using any other term that had "easyhack" in it because searches become difficult so again, ESC should deal with it.

My guess is lots and lots of bugs will be inadvertently closed with this method but that's no longer my issue.

(In reply to Joel Madero from comment #13)
> Okay - I don't follow any of those decisions any more. Couple notes then:
> 
> 1) ESC or someone else should figure out what to do about needsDevEval
> (which again is literally the exact same thing in this case); 

Actually not, only for easyhacks. When I look at bugs with needsDevEval there are typically questions about more than just code pointers.


> 2) Markus before was really against using any other term that had "easyhack"
> in it because searches become difficult so again, ESC should deal with it.
The much simpler solution is to remove easyhack, after having monitored easyhacks closely for half a year, it is my experience that code pointers are very seldomly added later (see the current NEEDINFO and how old they are)
> 
> My guess is lots and lots of bugs will be inadvertently closed with this
> method but that's no longer my issue.
lots and lots is a bit high, we have at the moment ca. 15 issues missing code pointer.

And if a code pointer is not supplied in 7 month, why should it be supplied later.


Adding more keywords like proposed_easyhacks just means more maintenance and complexer searchs, but I am quite indifferent as long as we have a fixed definition.

(In reply to jan iversen from comment #14)
> (In reply to Joel Madero from comment #13)
> > Okay - I don't follow any of those decisions any more. Couple notes then:
> > 
> > 1) ESC or someone else should figure out what to do about needsDevEval
> > (which again is literally the exact same thing in this case); 
> 
> Actually not, only for easyhacks. When I look at bugs with needsDevEval
> there are typically questions about more than just code pointers.

Hm - no idea. I know that when needsDevEval was proposed it was meant to replace propsedEasyHack....if it's not being used that way, I have no idea.


> > 2) Markus before was really against using any other term that had "easyhack"
> > in it because searches become difficult so again, ESC should deal with it.
> The much simpler solution is to remove easyhack, after having monitored
> easyhacks closely for half a year, it is my experience that code pointers
> are very seldomly added later (see the current NEEDINFO and how old they are)

That's not my call to make. If easyHacks are leaving, then so be it ;) You and ESC can make that call. I suspect some advocates won't be happy.

> > 
> > My guess is lots and lots of bugs will be inadvertently closed with this
> > method but that's no longer my issue.
> lots and lots is a bit high, we have at the moment ca. 15 issues missing
> code pointer.

Fair

> And if a code pointer is not supplied in 7 month, why should it be supplied
> later.

The problem is that these bugs are entirely valid but will be closed as INVALID if they go to NEEDINFO and sit there for 7 months. So, the bugs are inappropriately closed as INVALID (because they are entirely valid) they just don't have code pointers.

> 
> Adding more keywords like proposed_easyhacks just means more maintenance and
> complexer searchs, but I am quite indifferent as long as we have a fixed
> definition.

I didn't say anything about adding new keywords - I said we have one already that at least in theory should be used for (see https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/Bugzilla/Fields/Keywords#needsDevEval)

So we better go back and set proposed easyhacks as a comment plus needDevEval. And the dev sets EASYHACK along with all required information. Confirmation by ESC assumed... Jan?

*** Bug 93589 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***