ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:06:42AM -0700, Brian Murray wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:59:00AM +1000, Null Ack wrote:
> > Thanks very much guys :)
> > 
> > Andreas, with your request for other examples here is a bug that I
> > have been triaging as part of my work on Intrepid:
> > 
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/264571
> > 
> > Unlike some other examples, I didn't start this bug, cannot replicate
> > it and am actively triaging the issue with the bug reporter.
> > 
> > Here's another one that I didn't start. I did not agree with a
> > previous comment about ignoring the EULA screen and I explained why
> > reasons for it. When Mark Shuttleworth came into the bug and asked for
> > suggestions about what could possibly be done, I responded with mine
> > which he seemed pleased with. It's at:
> > 
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/269656
> > 
> > On the issue with not confirming your own bugs:
> > 
> > * The documentation specifically states:
> > 
> > When you have a complete report, and there is enough information to
> > debug the program, you can confirm the report. How do you know there
> > is enough information? Here are some example criteria, ANY of which is
> > sufficient:
> > 
> >     * Is there a patch that claims to fix the bug?
> >     * Are there sufficient log files and crash dumps, as outlined in
> > DebuggingProcedures?
> >     * Can you reproduce the bug yourself?
> >     * Does another distribution have a complete and confirmed bug?
> >     * Does the upstream author have a complete and confirmed bug?
> 
> Which documentation are you quoting here?

I'm still curious about this as I'd like to update it.

Thanks,  
-- 
Brian Murray                                                 @ubuntu.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature