ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Dave Morley <davmor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 18/05/12 15:53, Daniel Manrique wrote:
> On 12-05-10 10:55 AM, Dave Morley wrote:
>> Hi, I'm Dave Morley (davmor2) and I've been part of the bugsquad
>> for a long while now. I was fairly active early on till apport
>> bugs started coming in and I had no idea on how to read them. I
>> move over to iso testing at that point.  I've done a lot of work
>> with developers triaging bugs I've come across, confirming issues
>> and writing out steps to reproduce to help the devs out and
>> obtaining more info for them.
> 
>> I now work for canonical and am working for the Consumer
>> Applications team, this work involves everything to do with
>> Software Center. Because of this work I need to gain additional
>> triage rights to help the developers with the ubuntu based
>> Software Center Bugs.
> 
>> - 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 will continue being polite to any reporters and I've signed
>> the CoC since the beginning.
> 
> 
>> - Have you read Bugs/HowToTriage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status
>> and Bugs/Importance? Do you have any questions about that
>> documentation?
> 
>> I have read the pages that still exist there are a few links that
>> may need updating to point at the more up to date links.
> 
>> Example DebuggingProcedures
> 
> 
>> - What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport
>> crash report bug before making it public?
> 
>> Any Passwords, Account details of any sort, Login details, keys
>> of any sort, server names.  If there is no retrace attached or
>> there is a coredump.gz attached
> 
> 
>> - Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are
>>  interested in helping out with?
> 
>> software-center, aptdaemon, update-manager but primarily just 
>> software-center
> 
>> - Bug list:
> 
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-webcatalog/+bug/987851
> 
>> This example bug was confirmed by the maintainer but was triaged,
>> reported and importance set by myself following guidlines that
>> our team had laid out.
> 
> 
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ldtp/+bug/979183
> 
>> A bug report that was sent upstream when I discovered the lead
>> dev preferred them there rather than on launchpad.
> 
> 
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/967085
> 
>> Understanding how the system was meant to work meant I could
>> track down this issue report it to the correct team and see it
>> confirmed in a very short period of time.
> 
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ldtp/+bug/979229
> 
>> Another Bug sent to upstream
> 
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/969266
>
>>  One assigned to me that I am currently working on but can't
>> reliably interact with other than comments currently.  So you can
>> see the issue I face.
> 
>> Sorry for the lack of bugs I mostly triage bugs that are for
>> private teams now. So I've had a struggle finding some that I
>> could display.
> 
>> I'm hoping that these should be enough to warrant that I can work
>> with upstreams, set bug tags correctly that are relevant to our
>> team, set importance to the correct level by the merits of our
>> team, and can work with our own developers to confirm and triage
>> bugs.
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Thanks for applying for Bug Control!
> 
> I notice a lot of the bug reports you sent have no importance, and
> you didn't discuss anything on the importance you would have set
> for them. This is relevant as one of the main things Bug Control
> folks do is set importance for bugs, and evaluating your criteria
> and judgement for this is perhaps the main point of the application
> process.
> 
> Could you, then, for these bug reports, comment a bit on the
> importance you set / would have set for them?
> 
> Also remember that you can ask for bug importances to be set, Bug
> Control members are there to help with this too.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> - Daniel

Hi Daniel,

So for us in the Consumer Applications server team (where I have
triage, stat changing status currently) we have a slightly different
way of using the importance tool that we might look to port over to
Software-center also.  So that the whole team is off the same page
when it comes to the importance of a bug. Due to this on going talk
there is no definite decisions as to the right way of using this
feature currently.

As for the bugs listed in my examples then I would mark the importance
as follows:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/969266
Critical till the initial purchase issue was resolved then lower the
bug standing to medium for any ongoing work.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ldtp/+bug/979229 this is a medium bug for
me in that I can work around the issue but it's not ideal.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/967085 I would
set to medium it's not something that is a game stopper but should be
dealt with and isn't noticeably affecting a lot of users.  I would
escalate this to high if more people confirm this though.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ldtp/+bug/979183 should be
set to fix-released and medium, again I am the only person really
affected by this but it was preventing me doing my job effectively.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-webcatalog/+bug/987851 I already set
this to low which in our server talk means that this is annoying but
works just not as expected and should be worked on in time for the
12.10 release or earlier if possible.

The bug listed are mostly written by myself as they are the bugs that
I interact with the most.  The move to include USC with the work I do
on USC server is the only reason that I am applying for membership and
so if we (Consumer Applications) as a team settle on using one
methodology for marking importance then it will suddenly become more
import for me to be able to triage payment issues that might be report
against USC in a more timely manner, it would also mean that as the
guy in charge of QA for the CA team I would be able to spend one day a
week sitting and triaging the USC bugs in a format that everyone on
our team is familiar with.


I hope this helps but feel free to ask anything else.


- -- 
You make it, I'll break it!

I love my job :)
http://www.ubuntu.com
http://www.canonical.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk+2bWwACgkQT5xqyT+h3Oi63wCbBHWe6vQEKuqWgC5/wWn06vVk
qkwAn1FwxvmwmiUL8MPavJFXJSVCcMJW
=x5kF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----