ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Jack Leigh <leighmanthegreat@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sent to myself and it worked fine so I really hope it will be readable this time.
>> Would set importance according
>> to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WineTeam/Contributing, setting upstreamed
>> bugs to Triaged
>
> Actually, no, You are expected to set the importance according to
> *Ubuntu* rules [1]. Upstream's importance does not really play here
> (although, most of the times, Ubuntu and upstream do match).
Okay, sorry about that but was directed there by Wine team documentation (which I guess should be sorted!).  They seem to accord more-or-less anyway.
> But, anyway, you did not indicate what importance you would have set
> on any of the bugs below.
>
>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine1.2/+bug/607970
>
> Thank you for upstreaming this bug. Good work (and I also frankly
> doubt if it will be resolved, but who knows).
I would mark this as Low since it affects a non-core application and is an unusual request

>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine1.2/+bug/614546
>
> Why did you mark it Fix Released for wine-1.2 (Ubuntu)? Have we
> already published the fix on Maverick? I do not think so, since the
> fix is on Wine 1.3.1. The actual stati should be:
>
> Fix Released for the upstream
> Triaged for the Ubuntu task.
>
> A bug is only considered Fix Released on Ubuntu when we publish the
> fixed version.
Okay, sorry about that -- got a bit confused because I assumed there would be a wine1.3 package in Maverick like in the wine ppa.  Bad assumption!  Thanks for fixing it up.Probably again Low since it affects a minor application.Incidentally the Latin plural of 'status' is 'statūs' (4th declension, masculine), so 'statuses' is probably better! :D
>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine1.2/+bug/479223
>> -- added link to already filed upstream
>
> Thank you for the upstream link.
Would set this as Low since it's a rare/old application
>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine1.2/+bug/601715
>
> OK. What was triaged here?
Sorry, I think that might have been a mistake (although I have requested further information and marked 'Incomplete')Have https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine1.2/+bug/624386 instead, which I have confirmed and requested be upstreamed, then provided further information on the upstream report and made the upstream link.I would set the importance of this as Low since it is a rare application that I'm not convinced is necessary/ever going to work on Linux
>> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wine1.2/+bug/502375
>> -- duped a number of bugs which display the same symptoms to it,
>> requested more information about other sound-related bugs which
>> don't seem immediately linked to this
>
> Ugh! Sound bugs are nasty. It might be worth the time to check with
> the sound/pulseaudio experts. The only issue I have here is the fact
> that there are three different releases of Ubuntu (and two-ish of Wine)
> playing, not counting the sound stack.
Here I may set the importance to Medium since it has a much wider impact.Should I just ask someone in #ubuntu-bugs regarding the sound bugs (before duping?)?  I was careful in leaving a number alone for now.Upstream wine aren't very forgiving regarding pulseaudio and wine is due to be moving to openAL so these are in flux a little at the moment, I guess.
> All in all, a nice work, but needs more attention to the triaging
> documentation. I still want like to know what would you set as
> Importance on these bugs.
>
> Vote as of now is, then,
>
> 0.
>
> Cheers,

Thanks for the feedback!