ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Andreas Olsson <andol@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 28 April 2009 23:37:02 Brian Murray wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Andreas Olsson wrote:

> > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/296952
> > I would have set the importance of this bug to Medium.
>
> This looks great to me, thanks for tracking down the bug and providing a
> fix.  This seems like it would be relatively easy to create a package
> for a SRU - do you think it would be worthwhile for Hardy?
Well, I guess I haven't really goten the feel yet for what qualifies to being a 
SRU. But if you think it might I guess it never hurts to write up a SRU 
proposal. I'll take care of that later today or tomorrow.


> > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/325393
> > I would set the importance of this bug to Low.
> > (Yes, now I do know how to register a new project in Launchpad.)
>
> Forwarding bug reports upstream is a great service, thanks for doing
> this!  I agree with the importance you've chosen too.  The bug was
> missing a Debian bug watch which I added after finding the right
> Debian bug.  It might be worth watching this, since it was fixed
> upstream recently, to ensure that it gets pulled in for Karmic.
Actually there a quite a few things in the ntop package I'd like to work on. 
Figured I would contact the Debian Maintainer and see if I an get the job done 
in -unstable. Should be able to get that done in plenty of time for the result 
to get pulled into Karmic.

> > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/330588
> > I would set the importance of this bug to Low, or possibly to Wishlist.
> > Actually I would probably ask for a second opinion in #ubuntu-bugs.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to communicate with the reporter and find out
> what exactly there concern/bug was.  Its a rather interesting question
> but I'm not certain this belongs filed about netkit-tftp.  The best way
> of resolving the issue might be having the package description for
> tftp-hpa and tftp updated to be more clear.  If it were to happen it
> should happen upstream with Debian.
Yes, this should probably be resolved with "better" description fields. I'll 
see what I can do to move this issue forward.

> > *) https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/349072
> > I would actually have given this bug the Medium importance. While it
> > might be a corner case I do believe it's a very legitimate case in a
> > backup program.
>
> Again this is great work, thanks for preparing the patch and getting the
> bug fix in Jaunty!  It looks like you might have typo'ed the changelog
> entry to get the bug report auto-closed.  It needs to be LP: #349072 -
> you seem to be missing the ":".  I also agree with an importance of
> Medium for this bug report.
Yes, noticed that missing ":", afterwards. Is that something which should be 
fixed next time the rdiff-backup package is updated? If so, might it be a good 
idea to create a bug report about it, as a reminder?

> Based on the quality of your work and the positive feedback from other
> Bug Control members I'm happy to approve your membership in the team.
> Welcome!
Thank you!

@Andreas Moog, Charlie Kravetz: Thanks for the positive feedback!


// Andreas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.