ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[C de-Avillez <hggdh2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:34:08 +0100
James Page <james.page@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Please review the information below to support my application for
> membership of the Ubuntu Bug Control team.
> 
>       * Do you promise to be polite to bug reporters even if they are
>         rude to you or Ubuntu? 
> 	
>                 I do.
> 
>       * Have you signed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct? 
> 	Yes
> 
>       * Have you read Bugs/HowToTriage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status
> and Bugs/Importance? 
> 	
>                 Yes
> 
>       * Do you have any questions about that documentation? 
> 	
>                 No (but I reserve the right to ask questions in the
>                 future!)
> 
>       * 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 would look for any sensitive information such as
>                 passwords, private keys or other personal
> information in core dumps and stack traces

Also, any bug still containing a coredump should always be private.

>       * Is there a particular package or group of packages that you
> are interested in helping out with? 
> 
> 	Anything Java related and server-team packages
> 
>       * 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. If there is a bug in your list
> that does not have an importance indicate what importance (and
>         explain the reasoning) you would give it after becoming a
> member of Ubuntu Bug Control. Please use urls in your list of bugs. 
> 
> 	List of bugs I have triaged over the last couple of weeks:
> 
>                 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dovecot/+bug/645808 
>                 I would have set the importance of this bug to High
> as it impacted a key stack in Maverick in the run up to
>                 release candidate.  Confirmed and raised with ttx to
>                 ensure included in release milestone bugs for server
>                 team.

I was confused here, and had a brief chat with James on IRC. He,
indeed worked on this bug but -- instead of adding in his work, he
chatted about it on IRC with other server-team members, and TTX went
ahead and finalised it.

Agree on importance, but not a good example of work (no trail).

>                 
>                 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mailman/+bug/651182
>                 I would have set the importance of this bug to Low.
>                 Confirmed that the bug existed; raised upstream by
>                 reporter (which saved me some time!)

Reproduced the bug before confirming -- fantastic! Of course, the OP
also helped opening the bug on Debian. Marked Tiaged, agree on
Importance.

> 
>                 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ibmasm-utils/+bug/651877
>                 I would have set the importance of this bug to Low
> as it has minimal impact other than allowing someone to
>                 install a package which would never work on a powerpc
>                 architecture.  Confirmed that the module ibmasm is
> only supported on x86 architecture, re-titled to reflect
>                 actual bug.

Good work, on an architecture that is not that common anymore
(PowerPC). This is actually an example that some times we *can* work
on bugs that deal with hardware we do not have ourselves. Agree on importance.
                
>                 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apache2/+bug/645654
>                 Marked as a duplicate of an existing bug 621837.

Fished the actual error out of the DpkgTerminalLog attachment, and
found another bug for this, marked Duplicate. Good.

But what would be the Importance?

>                 
>                 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bacula/+bug/651432
>                 I would have set the importance of this bug to Low
> as it is possible to work round the issue.  Confirmed bug and
>                 documented a workaround in the bug report.  Marked as
>                 duplicate of #616754 which also had alternative
>                 workaround.

(I was involved on this bug also, so caveat emptor)

Good work, mostly for the search of another bug on the same issue. As
a pointer, when we have a workaround we should follow
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Description -- the workaround (and the
other items in this page) should be described at the bottom of the bug
description.

All in all, good work. As of now, a tentative

+1, pending clarification.

Cheers,


-- 
C de-Avillez
IRC: hggdh

This email (and any attachments) is digitally signed using GNUpg
(http://gnupg.org). The public key is available at http://pgp.mit.edu.
The key Id is 0xD3133E56.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature