ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 05:11:16PM -0400, Mathew Hodson wrote:
> I'm Mathew Hodson (mathew-hodson), and I have be helping out with Ubuntu
> bugs in my spare time for about a year. I would like to join the Bug
> Control team.

Great! I've seen your work and was hoping that you would apply.

> "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?"
> 
> I promise to always be polite, and I have signed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct.
> 
> "Have you read Bugs/Triage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status and
> Bugs/Importance? Do you have any questions about that documentation?"
> 
> I have read them, and I don't have any questions at this time.
> 
> "What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport crash
> report bug before making it public? See Bugs/Triage for more information."
> 
> Remove Coredump.gz before making the bug public, and check the stack
> traces for financial information, login credentials, or security keys.
> 
> "Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are
> interested in helping out with?"
> 
> I am particularly interested in bugs that would be a good candidate for
> or are going through the SRU process.

How do you go about determining which bug reports are good candidates
for a Stable Release Update? More specifically how do you find these
types of bugs in Launchpad.

> Bugs I have worked on:
> 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bash-completion/+bug/1358154
> Confirmed that the fix was incorrect and identified the proper fix.
> Importance Low because it is not essential for use of the application.

Given that the bug is not in fact fixed, the status of the task should
not be Fixed Released. Additionally, given that the intent was to fix
the bug in Vivid, there should probably be a task for Vivid. Otherwise,
your work here looks good.

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/1296218
> Confirmed issue still existed on Trusty and reproduced with log.
> Importance Medium because it has a severe impact on a non-core application.

This looks good to me and I've reopened the task. I forget if there are
permissions associated with reopening a bug task - is changing a bug
task away from Fix Released not something that you can do?

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-calculator/+bug/1387887
> Reported regression by a proposed SRU with test case. Importance Medium
> because it has a moderate impact on a core application.

This looks fantastic, thanks for the detailed test case.

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-calculator/+bug/1380561
> Bug confirmed. Clarified title, rewrote description, which was
> conflating two issues, and linked to the other issue. Importance Low
> because it has a limited impact on a core application.

This looks great also, I was easily able to recreate the bug in Ubuntu
15.04.

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/system-config-printer/+bug/778054
> Very old bug confirmed and clarified. Provided patches and shepherded
> through SRU. Importance Low because it has limited impact but a trivial fix.

Ah, I thought this bug looked familiar. Obviously, this one looks good.

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/vdpau-video/+bug/964040
> Confirmed bug, merged duplicates, and assigned to the right package.
> Importance Low because there is a workaround.

This looks good. One thing I recommend is also putting the workaround,
just like the test case, in the bug description that way people don't
have to scroll through several, dozens, or hundreds of comments to find
it.

A hearty +1 from me. Thanks for all your work and helping out.

--
Brian Murray
Ubuntu Bug Master

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature