papercuts-ninja team mailing list archive

[Chris Wilson <notgary@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess I jumped the gun a little with this one. Two thing have happened
since my original email:

1. I came across this old report:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/275450
2. I was reading Bugs/Importance <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance> so
I could write our own
OneHundredPaperCuts/Importance<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneHundredPaperCuts/Importance>

and I realise my original argument for excluding localisation issues is
contradicted by by action on that report, which is backed up by some of the
things in Bugs/Importance.

The bug will only affect a relatively small number of users, but the affect
will be severe, and Bugs/Importance allowed for a 'server impact on a small
number of users'.

I think we need to have a discussion on the definition of a paper cut
before going any further. These incremental changes (which are all my
fault) are doing no one any good.

I'll also start a new thread for it. Sorry for all the hassle.

Chris

On 1 January 2013 19:40, Chris Wilson <notgary@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 1 January 2013 18:23, Timothy Arceri <t_arceri@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I dont see why we are restricting papercuts like this. I have helped fix
>> a number of locale issues through papercut reports, either by allocating
>> the bug to the right place in launchpad or by reporting it to the right
>> place upstream
>
>
> This is how I think we should handle all bugs that we're not going to look
> at ourselves - forward them to someone who will.
>
>
>> no more kde,
>
>
> I believe this was necessary. If we're going to support Kubuntu, then we
> would also need to support Xubuntu and Lubuntu, and by focusing only on
> Ubuntu, we can target more bugs there than we would be able to had we split
> ourselves over multiple desktops.
>
>
>> no locale bugs isn't that what caused the project to die off in the first
>> place no bugs for people work on?
>
>
> The restrictions that caused the project to die off the first time round
> were different from these ones. Back then, it was a lot of bugs being
> rejected as 'feature requests' or 'not affecting the average user', and the
> biggest one was 'just a normal bug instead of a usability flaw'. It's that
> last one that I think we've loosened up on which is allowing us to target
> more bugs.
>
>
>> We are still yet to have targeted 100 for this release (we are almost
>> there but not yet) if anything we should be removing limitations and
>> widening the project that way we also widen the range of potential
>> contributers to the project.
>
>
> I know, and I realise I've lost track of that over the past month. I'm
> going to get onto this now and start asking people to send us their paper
> cuts. I've also got a few ideas to make it easier to find existing paper
> cuts in the current bug database. Over the next day or two I'll put
> together some wiki pages for them so a discussion can begin.
>
> I appreciate your concern over the restrictions and the possible
> implication they could have, but I feel we're only going to loose a handful
> of potential paper cuts from these, while gaining many more by lightening
> the definition in other areas. I really appreciate you sticking about with
> the project for so long, through its ups and downs, as well as all the work
> you've put into fixing the paper cuts, and I hope you'll stick about into
> the future.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>