ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 03:08:02PM -0500, RedSingularity wrote:
> On 03/07/2011 08:54 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> >On 03/07/2011 07:31 AM, C de-Avillez wrote:
> >>Forwarding for RedSingularity, he could not email BugControl.
> >>
> >>-------- Original Message --------
> >>Subject: 	Application
> >>Date: 	Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:12:11 -0500
> >>From: 	RedSingularity<RedSingularity@xxxxxxx>
> >>To: 	hggdh2@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>RedSingularity's (Tim's) Application,
> >>
> >>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 / YES
> >>
> >>2)  Have you read Bugs/HowToTriage
> >><https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage>, Bugs/Assignment
> >><https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Assignment>, Bugs/Status
> >><https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status>  and Bugs/Importance
> >><https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance>?  Do you have any
> >>questions about that documentation?
> >>
> >>-YES / NO
> >>
> >>3)  What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport
> >>crash report bug before making it public?
> >>
> >>-Sensitive data to look for in a apport crash would be found in
> >>stacktrace.txt files.  Things such as passwords, bank account
> >>numbers, CSS keys, user names, server names, etc may be located in
> >>there.
> >And, please do not forget, coredumps, configuration files, etc.
> >
> >>4)  Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are
> >>interested in helping out with?
> >>
> >>-I work on any package I feel comfortable with.  Most of my time
> >>goes to the update-manager package though.  I have been working with
> >>that for many months.
> >>
> >>5)  Please list five or more bugs which you have triaged and include
> >>an explanation of your Triage. Please note that these bugs should be
> >>representative of your very best work and they should demonstrate
> >>your understanding of the triage process and how to properly handle
> >>bugs.
> >>Importance for each one has been discussed with -control
> >>members before being assigned.
> >Unfortunately, any other bug-control member not involved in these
> >discussions will have no idea of *how* you reached the conclusion.
> >Please resend with your rationale for the importances.
> >
> >
> >><https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/704667>   Bug1
> Importance: "Medium",  This bug affected all FRESH natty installs
> and it was a core-app.  The workaround was simple enough though
> therefore not "High"

I've a few issues with this particular bug report.  The title is
misleading, 'Update-manager crashes on fresh installs' is quite
different from 'update-manager crashes on fresh installs if you leave
the authentication dialog open for a long time'.  And part of the
problem with a title like the one this bug has is that it can cause
multiple bugs, like 'update-manager crashes on fresh installs if you
click cancel', to be lumped into one bug report.  If one tests both
scenarios you'll notice that apport creates a different bug title and
stacktrace for both of these.  While its possible both bugs may have the
same root cause I'd rather see two separate bug reports with comments in
each of them pointing to the other bug.  That way when a developer is
working on one of them they will become aware of the possibly related
bug report.

With regards to the importance of the bug reports, I really believe
there are 2 separate ones here, I'd say the 'click cancel' one is High
(as this is more likely to occur) and 'leave open for a long time' one
is Medium or Low.  I like the summary in the bug description, this made
it easy to recreate the bug, but would prefer that it were broken out
into distinct steps to recreate it as it is easier to parse that way.
I'd really appreciate it if you were to break this up into two separate
bug reports as I'd like to get the 'click cancel' fixed for Natty.

> >><https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bug/664265>   Bug2
> Importance:  "Low", It only effected people with the mentioned intel
> VGA chipset WITH compiz enabled as the window manager.  Workaround
> was as simple as using the default manager Metacity.

As I understand it packages which are hardware related, Xorg and the
kernel for example, really prefer to have separate bug reports for each
type of hardware rather than each specific driver.  In this case the
title just says 'intel driver' which is likely to attract a lot of
comments from people with different hardware.  Its important to have the
specific PCI ID for hardware and this is can be obtained 'lspci -vvnn'.

Additionally, while this is my opinion I wouldn't really call using a
different window manager a workaround as it can be a fundamental change
in computing environment.

Finally, I was surprised by comment #7 regarding 'firefox config
files can become corrupt' and the recommendation to delete data.  I've
been upgrading my desktop since Edgy and I'm using the same Firefox
profile.  Is there a bug report regarding this corruption?

> >><https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/thunderbird/+bug/699922>   Bug3
> Importance:  "Low", It only effected the group of people using a
> dual monitor set up.  The issue did not effect the usage of
> thunderbird in any way.  It was more of a "cosmetic" issue.

This looks fine, thanks for taking the time to forward the bug report
upstream.

> >><https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/715517>    Bug4
> Importance:  "Low",  The problem with the restart button was a
> nuisance but nothing more.  Did not effect the proper working of the
> update-manager.  And in order to reproduce you need to start
> update-manager as root which is not done normally anyway.

This looks great - the bug title is a clear description of the problem
and the steps to reproduce look good.  I agree with an importance of Low
here as it really seems like a corner case.

> >><https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/638744>   Bug5
> Importance:  "Wishlist", obviously this was a usability improvement
> idea for update-manager so it got the wishlist stamp.

I disagree with the importance here as a premature reboot could cause
quite a few problems for a user.  I'd hope they realize the upgrade is
still happening but you never know and we should err on the side of
caution.  I would set it to High or Medium after confirming it in Natty.

> >><https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/693131>   Bug6
> Importance:  "Wishlist", another usability improvement idea that was
> EASY to implement.  Bitesize.  (I looked at the source code of
> update-manager for this one to be sure)

The ease of implementing a fix should not have any bearing on the
importance of the bug.  The details in the bug report were helpful in
locating the bug and fixing it and I appreciate your work there.
However, I think the bug summary is a bit speculative and would rather
see steps to recreate the bug report.

I didn't look at all the specific dates associated with these bugs and
your comments but I got the impression that some of the issues I found
might have happened early in your bug triaging career.  I think you are
on the right path and appreciate all the work you have done but don't
feel that you are ready for Ubuntu Bug Control at this point in time.  I
encourage you to continue your bug work and look forward to reviewing
your application at a later date.

Sincerely,
--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature