ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brendan Donegan <brendan.donegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 26/03/14 15:36, C de-Avillez wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Brendan Donegan <
> brendan.donegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> IMO, a team should also be looking at Triaged bugs when selecting new
>> tasks to work on, so if the bugs are genuinely Triaged and they have
>> enough information to go to In Progress (when a developer wants to work
>> on them) then I don't see the harm in general. I personally would tend
>> to look at both New and Triaged bugs when looking to pick up bug fixing
>> work on the projects I help maintain.
>>
> 
> It all depends. There is NO one-size-fits-all that will work. The security
> team (as well as the kernel team, and others) have special workflows. One
> problem we have in launchpad is that there is no concept of workflow, all
> we have are bugs (as far as we are concerned). Workflow was hammered in
> bugs, using what launchpad provides.
> 
> (Also, you have imposed yourself a limit -- "when looking (...) on the
> projects I help maintain". You do not go and change bugs on projects you DO
> NOT maintain. You actually may go in, but you will be more careful.)

No, I wasn't talking about Triaging bugs, I was talking about picking up
new bugs to work on.

> 
> But, back to the issue at hand. The majority of security bugs shown with
> Alberto's search are *visibly* different from the "normal" bugs we deal
> with. I expect triagers to be careful on what they do -- if a certain bug
> looks different from the "common" (whatever it may mean) bug, STOP. Find
> why it is different. Don't assume that it is all the same.

It is the purpose of bug-control to triage bugs in Ubuntu - if there are
exceptions to that then they should be documented. It sounds like we're
talking about CVE's specifically and I can understand how they'd be a
special case. I guess this should be documented somewhere. We shouldn't
expect people to guess.

> 
> And, of course, we should document these special workflows, at least to
> allow triagers to identify them.
> 
> ..C..
>