ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Philip Muskovac <yofel@xxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 30 March 2014 22:17:38 Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 03/30/2014 12:57 PM, Philip Muskovac wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > to explain things, lets go a bit back into the past to around
> > 2010. The situation with bug reports against KDE packages back then
> > was essentially: - Only very little triagers (i.e. 1-2, mostly a
> > developer) - These types of bugs: A) Bugs in the packaging that
> > affect us, but not upstream B) Upstream bugs C) Long fixed
> > upstream bugs that were never closed
> >
> > Quite frankly, the only bugs we really care about are A), B) to
> > the extent that they make sense for SRU's - otherwise not, same for
> > C)
> 
> I understand the argument, but the same could be made for Ubuntu.  I'm
> not clear on exactly why this argument wins for one and not the other,
> and more importantly, since there is only one bugcontrol group and one
> project that covers both, if there is such a distinction, it needs to
> be documented in the Ubuntu triaging guidelines.
> 
> > Also, I don't really see how our policy *conflicts* with the
> > ubuntu triage policy (it should've been documented as a special
> > workflow though I guess?) We do not mess with the bug importance,
> > most of our bugs are never moved from 'Undecided', otherwise the
> > Ubuntu-wide rules apply, so no issue there. When it comes to the
> > status, all we do is close the bugs much earlier in the workflow.
> > So if an ubuntu triager would triage a KDE bug following the ubuntu
> > policy he wouldn't intefere with any workflow (unlike the 'Stop
> > triaging bugs' thread we had last week). We would just go ahead and
> > close it. If the bug wasn't fully triaged - by sending the reporter
> > upstream, if it was fully triaged - by just closing it explaining
> > why.
> 
> It conflicts because the Ubuntu policy is to track bugs, whether they
> are upstream ( as the vast majority are ) or not.

Pretty much no Ubuntu Triager and/or Developer has cared about KDE related bugs the last few years, and as I already said, the information value in tracking the bugs on launchpad is useless to us Kubuntu Developers, so we decided to just close them instead of letting them rot.

I guess we could change to policy to mark bugs as Incomplete instead of Invalid until they've been forwarded upstream and mark them as Triaged once that's done (We've not discussed this yet, just my personal POV).
At this point, we're done with the bugs and won't touch them any more.
If an Ubuntu Developer wants to go and verify that the bugs have been fixed and close them, they may go ahead and do that at some later point - it doesn't bring any value to us.
(Except for the few cases that I mentioned that we do track on launchpad even now)

> 
> > From my very personal POV (as I originally come from the ubuntu
> > side), the ubuntu triage policy is a very good workflow for bug
> > management. It just doesn't scale for the Kubuntu team.
> > Improvements welcome (but none that require us developers to spend
> > more time that we don't have)
> 
> I still don't see a distinction between Ubuntu and Kubuntu triaging
> teams.  It's one team.  It is one distribution, just with different
> desktop cd spins that have different package subsets preinstalled.