ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2014-07-19 02:02, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
>> Considering that a bug gets "confirmed" as soon as somebody besides the
>> bug reporter states that it affects him/her, I think that confirmed bugs
>> should always be included when looking for untouched bugs.
> 
> But isn't confirming bugs a task rather related with the tester role
> than with the triager one?
> 
> Why shall bug triagers be looking at new bugs being most of them not
> triageable without getting confirmation first, and specially having in
> place a role specially intended for confirming?

Somehow I feel that you misunderstood what I tried to say. I agree that
triagers should check out confirmed bugs. But new ones are also
motivated to look at, since many of them are easily triagable.

> Moreover, what is the point of confirming bug reports one by one?

Not sure what you mean. If you think a bug is ready for the developers,
you mark it "triaged", don't you?

> If the bug is somehow relevant, wouldn't it be happening to at least two
> people in the world while testing the software? Then why not spending
> that time rather in finding bugs than in reading tons of invalid reports?

I don't think there is an absolute truth here.

-- 
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj