ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Micah Gersten <launchpad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I just received a user not found message from my reply for
michealh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx . I suggest that no one bother replying until he
provides a valid address.

Micah

On 08/18/2010 10:19 PM, Micah Gersten wrote:
> Replying inline as one message
> 
> On 08/18/2010 05:40 PM, Micheal Harker wrote:
>> oops I clicked send there by accident. The reply is AFTERthe original
>> message.
>>
>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 23:16, Micheal Harker <
>> <mailto:michealh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> <mailto:michealh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>michealh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:michealh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Yes. I have signed the Code of Conduct and yes I will be polite
>>> whenever someone my hurt me of my feelings for ubuntu. I believe
>>> CONSTRUCTIVE criticism will make Ubuntu even better.
> 
> The goal is to *always* be polite *even if* one is insulted.
> 
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> 2. Have you read Bugs/HowToTriage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status and
>>> Bugs/Importance? Do you have any questions about that documentation?
>>>
>>> Nope, It seems pretty straight forward and I use Ubuntu on a Day so I
>>> can check some bugs out then. Also, If I had any questions on the
>>> matter as they arise I can ask on IRC before carrying out an action.
> 
> Well, there seems to be an issue with posting responses which we'll get
> to down with the bugs.
> 
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> 3. What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport crash
>>> report bug before making it public? See Bugs/HowToTriage for more
>>> information.
>>>
>>> I defiantly heard from there that if a CoreDump.gz is attached then
>>> make the report private. The file may contain sensitive information
>>> but I have to subscribe myself first.
> 
> Well, stacktraces can also contain private data.
> 
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> 4. Is there a particular package or group of packages
>>> that you are interested in helping out with?
>>>
>>> Acctually no, I am a sorta what We should call "all rounder" at buy
>>> reporting and answering. I try to get all the new Bugs  sorted and as
>>> being as I have lots of time let's see If I can get the list down to a
>>> manageable number using what the wiki page tells us :)
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> 5. Please list five or more bugs which you have triaged. These bugs
>>> should demonstrate your understanding of the triage process and how to
>>> properly handle bugs. For *each* of these bugs, please point out what
>>> Importance (and reasoning) you would give it after becoming a member
>>> of Ubuntu Bug Control. Please use URLs in your list of bugs. 
>>>
>>> Bug #616538 - I chose medium for severity and Medium was decided upon.
>>> This is because some people may want to install the package but can't.
> 
> On this bug, you posted a link to the comment text instead of the actual
> comment.  There seems to be an issue with the confirmed state, but I'll
> bring that up in a separate mail to the list.  Is this bug in Maverick
> as well which has the 2.6.35 kernel?  We normally don't support the
> mainline kernel in any release.  There was talk of a Maverick kernel
> being backported for Lucid for certain uses, but I haven't seen that
> yet.  Why was this bug accepted?
> 
>>>
>>> Big #616536 - I thought the severity should have been medium. It was
>>> picked Medium I said It was because if a ubuntu use likes that
>>> screensaver and has some work ing
>>>
> 
> Once again you posted the link to the response instead of actually
> responding.  Were you able to reproduce this in a Maverick Live CD
> environment?
> 
> <snip signature, repeat text />
>> Anyway Let me continue 
>>
>> If the user wanted to have the screensaver but had apt running he would
>> soon find out apt broke because of it. Not Good.
>>
>> Bug #616581 - I decided Medium again but the bug was classified as high.
>> I thought it should of been medium because It wouldn't affect the
>> majority of users. But now I understand why it is high.
> 
> Yes, High is appropriate since it makes the default install unusable.
> 
>>  Bug #619532 - This bug was triaged in Ubuntu (as well as 100 paper
>> cuts). I decided on Low because It could annoy people just the tiniest
>> bit. But I was set to wishlist which is even better than low for this. I
>> also understand why It was wishlist material.
> 
> Wow, this bug is a doozy, there's a list of issues:
> 1.  We don't know where the user is trying to change the password.  That
> might affect where the bug should have been assigned.
> 2.  The bug was upstreamed without a link back to Launchpad bug.
> 3.  The bug description was copied and pasted upstream without checking
> to make sure it made sense.  This was noted by one of the Debian
> Maintainers (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=593513#18)
> 4.  I was not given a status for this bug.  I was just asked that it
> should be "Triaged".  (Yes I should've asked, but I was busy).
> 5.  The triager created an atmosphere of hurry in the channel that this
> needed to be completed immediately.  This led to issues 1-3 not being
> properly addressed by the Bug Control members that were helping.  (We're
> at fault too in this case).
> Triage requires a cool head and calm to insure that the proper actions
> are taken.  This keeps us from wasting the time of Ubuntu developers,
> upstream developers, and reporters.
> 
>> Bug #616446 - It was suggested at low and It had gotten the Low status I
>> decided on Low because It wasn't really Wishlist nor Important It was
>> just a general issue that didn't need to have the same priority as other
>> big massive bugs because It Network manager was perfectly fine but It
>> just needed that tweak. It was fixed in a later update.
> 
> This bug is Incomplete which means that it has not been triaged to
> completion in one way or another.  There's really not enough information
> to tell what the importance should be at this time.  If it's
> reproducible, it might be medium since the package might be installable.
> 
> The main difference between Bug Squad and Bug Control is being able to
> determine when a bug has enough information for Developers (to set
> Triaged) and set the Importance.  While you do have some understanding
> of the Importance, I do not believe that you understand what constitutes
> a bug with enough information yet.  Furthermore, while you are very
> eager to help which is a good thing,  I think you need to slow down and
> ask more questions.  I would suggest getting a mentor and trying to
> specialize in one or several areas where you have a good understanding
> of how the packages in question work so that you can easily test
> reproducible steps and know what's necessary for triage.
> 
> Given mentoring and some time, I think you can be a great help, but at
> the moment I have to give your application a -1.
> 
> Micah
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol
> Post to     : ubuntu-bugcontrol@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp