ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:50:20AM -0400, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> Hello Bug Control,
> 
> I've been an Ubuntu member since 2006 and have been triaging bugs for
> a lot of that time.  I now work for Canonical in Support and we just
> got Bug Control access (thanks!) but I wanted to get approved
> personally too.
> 
> 1.Do you promise to be polite to bug reporters even if they are rude
> to you or Ubuntu?
> Yes.
> Have you signed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct?
> Yup. https://launchpad.net/~bryanquigley/+codesofconduct
> 
> 2. Have you read Bugs/Triage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status and
> Bugs/Importance? Do you have any questions about that documentation?
> Yes.  Now that with brainstorm gone what's the best way to suggest a
> feature?  Just propose a UDS session? (that's generally what I've
> done)
> 
> 3. What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport crash
> report bug before making it public? See Bugs/Triage for more
> information.
> Coredump file and possible data leaking in functions in the
> stacktrace. How thorough is a judgement call given how sensitive the
> crashing application is.
> 
> 4. Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are
> interested in helping out with?
> LibreOffice has mostly been my triage focus so far, but I do a much
> bigger range for work.  I also maintain gnome-nibbles upstream.  I'd
> also like to help triage top crashers from errors.ubuntu.com so that
> they don't stay private for long.
> 
> 5. Please list five or more bug reports which you have triaged and
> include an explanation of your decisions.
> 
> Forwarded upstream because it had enough to be worked on. Medium seems
> fine as it shouldn't impact the average sudoku player.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-sudoku/+bug/1272716

As I mentioned elsewhere linking to the problem page in the Error
Tracker would be useful, and having the upstream bug watch in the task
table makes things easier too.

> Medium is fine for this bug as well, balancing that it is a hard crash
> but difficult to reproduce.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/df-libreoffice/+bug/1350369

Looks good to me.

> Low would be good for this bug because it's only if you manually
> remove part of libreoffice.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/1359304

Agreed.

> I would have marked this as High as it could cause a machine to lose
> the network interface user expects to be able to reach it on.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/saucy/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1160490

Agreed.

> This can stay at low only because it has an easy workaround.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/dbus/+bug/592434

Oh, I've seen this bug! I'd actually think it should be higher than Low
as the workaround is not easily discoverable. Additionally, the
workaround should be added to the description like so:

Workaround
----------

This way people don't have to read lots of comments trying to find it.

+1 from me on the application.

--
Brian Murray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature