ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:46:04PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> Here is the latest application to the Bug Control team.
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Mike Rooney <mrooney@xxxxxxxxx> -----
> 
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:24:52 -0400
> From: Mike Rooney <mrooney@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: catterly wants to join
> 
> Hi Brian!
> 
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 5:26 AM, Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thanks for your interest in joining the Ubuntu Bug Control team.  As
> >  part of the application process I need to ensure that the following
> >  criteria are met.
> >
> >  1) Do you promise to be polite to bug reporters even if they are rude to
> >  you or Ubuntu?  Have you signed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct?
> 
> This will certainly not be a problem. I consider patience and kindness
> to be two of my virtues and I genuinely enjoy helping people and
> improving projects. I have in fact signed the UCoC and am an Ubuntero.

He is in fact an Ubuntero.  It is possible to verify whether or not
someone is by looking at their page in Launchpad and looking at the
Ubuntero field in the "Summary" area.
 
> >  2) Have you read Bugs/HowToTriage[0], Bugs/Assignment[1] and
> >  Bugs/Importance[2] at wiki.ubuntu.com?  Do you have any questions about
> >  that documentation?
> 
> I have read all of these and more, as linked from #ubuntu-bugs. I
> originally had a few questions in regards to Invalid vs Won't Fix and
> Feature Freeze Exceptions, but the people in #ubuntu-bugs cleared it
> up for me.

I wonder what questions he had and if the wiki page for Bugs/Status
should be clarified.
 
> >  3) What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport crash
> >  report bug before making it public?  See Bugs/HowToTriage[1] for more
> >  information.
> 
> It should be free of sensitive user information such as passwords,
> account numbers, private keys, etc.
> 
> This does bring up one question though. It says a bug can remain
> private for its life and does not seem to say why you should or should
> not change it to public. What are the disadvantages of making an
> audited bug public that would cause someone to leave it private?

The advantage of making a bug public is that anyone can look at it.
Only members of the Ubuntu Bug Control, direct or indirect, can view
private bug reports.
 
> >  4) Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are
> >  interested in helping out with?
> 
> Not specifically, though I am interested in Gnome, Rhythmbox, and
> Firefox, to name a few, perhaps more than other issues.
> 
> >  5) I also need to see a list of five or more bugs which you have
> >  triaged.  These bugs should demonstrate your understanding of the triage
> >  process and how to properly handle bugs.  If there is a bug in your list
> >  that does not have an importance indicate what importance you would give
> >  it after becoming a member of Ubuntu Bug Control.  Please use urls in
> >  your list of bugs so I can more easily find them.
> >
> 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem/+bug/136608
> 
> This is a bug that I found that was against an alpha of Gutsy and
> hadn't been changed since its release, so I wanted to check with the
> submitter to see if it was actually still an issue, or if it could be
> marked invalid.

This looks good to me.
 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rhythmbox/+bug/78038 and
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/193617
> 
> These are two bugs that I suspect may be the same issue and am
> awaiting feedback to further determine if they are. For the first one
> I disagree with the priority, as per my comment. After discussion with
> BugControl members in #ubuntu-bugs, the important of the second was
> changed to High as I convinced them of the bad consequences and the
> invalidity of the current behavior. Hopefully I can do some more
> testing soon and mark one as a duplicate if it is the case.

His work here looks really good too.  I'm happy to see that he mentioned
bug 78038 in bug 193617.
 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/rhythmbox/+bug/76449 is a rhythmbox bug
> which affected me personally and prompted me to search out an existing
> bug, which I found, and work on it. The issue hadn't been updated in
> awhile so I commented just to see if I could do anything. After I
> confirmed it was still an issue in the version in a Hardy Alpha, I got
> more concerned and registered for the bug tracker rhythmbox uses and
> commented on the linked bug there, to try to get more information.
> Unfortunately progress seems stagnant here so this may be a place
> where I actually have to dig in to the code/project myself and try to
> get this working.

I'm happy to see that he registered for the upstream tracker and
commented on the upstream bug.  This is great!
 
>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/checkgmail/+bug/201555 is a
> bug which I experienced and found and confirmed. I would mark this as
> Medium important if I could because gmail is a pretty widely used
> service, and this bug renders checkgmail unusable to anyone but a
> power user who can figure out what package to manually install. If you
> have a minute, I wouldn't mind advice on what I could do next to help
> this bug along, since it seems like a fairly simple issue.

This looks good to me however I'd like to see more information about the
version of packages affected rather than "up to date Hardy Beta".  That
might just be a pet peeve of mine though.
 
> Hopefully all of this has been sufficient. Thanks, let me know if I
> can provide you with any more information, and I look forward to
> becoming more involved in Ubuntu!

I think his work looks great and would approve his application.  Does
anyone else have any comments or opinions?

Thanks,
-- 
Brian Murray                                                 @ubuntu.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature