ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:58:52PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to join bug control to be able to work more effectively on apt,
> python-apt bugs (and probably some in the other packages I maintain as
> a Debian Developer in Debian and most of which I also maintain upstream).
> 
> I'm also about to request PPU for those packages.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Yes, yes.
> 
> > Have you read Bugs/Triage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status and Bugs/Importance? Do you have any questions about that documentation?
> 
> Yes I read them, and I don't have any questions.
> 
> > What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport crash report bug before making it public? See Bugs/Triage for more information.
> 
> Coredumps and stuff like login data
> 
> 
> > Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are interested in helping out with?
> 
> Primarily apt and python-apt. Also dh-autoreconf, dir2ogg, gnu-efi, hardlink, hplip, ndisgtk, ndiswrapper - all of
> which I (co-)maintain upstream in Debian, so it's quite useful to be able to control bugs here as well, as I close
> them from changelogs uploaded to Debian.
> 
> > Please list five or more bug reports which you have triaged and include an explanation of your decisions.
> > Please note that these bugs should be representative of your very best work and they should demonstrate
> > your understanding of the triage process and how to properly handle bugs. For all the bugs in the list, 
> > please indicate what importance you would give it and explain the reasoning. Please use urls in your list of bugs.
> 
> As an upstream APT developer, triaging the bug mostly ends up with knowing what the failure is and fixing
> it directly, so it's not really going to be a fancy list here.
> 
> 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1547984 (not really completely done yet)
> 
>    APT warns about downloading a package when it cannot drop permissions. es20490446e set the importance to
>    high which is slightly ridiculous, as a warning is just a minor inconvenience or "A usability issue that
>    does not limit the functionality of a core application." and should thus be medium.
> 
> 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1562733
> 
>    This is APT rejecting repositories without SHA2 fields. After this turned out to become a problem
>    for AppStream, I developed a work around and a test case for it, which is now part of 1.2.12 and 1.3~exp1
> 
>    I think High is somewhat correct, as that's an annoying issue for a small set of people.
> 
> 3. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/565364
> 
>    I explained why this happens and actually rewrote the whole policy engine during last year's DebConf
>    to fix this bug amongst a lot of others. Medium is correct here, as the old pinning engine worked
>    reasonably well for a decade or something, that is, "A bug that has a moderate impact on a core application."
> 
> 4. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/275994
> 
>    Changed to a more reasonable title. The Debian bug was closed as wontfix, I guess we should probably
>    do the same here, although I'm somewhat open to actually convincing the rest of the APT team to allow
>    that as a hidden option, as it can be useful.
> 
> There are a lot of older APT crashes that I worked on, but I cannot find them anymore, and that
> was a long time ago. I gradually improved APT, first by adding a file size to the cache to detect
> a truncated cache (which should actually be the sole reason crashes occur), and now it has a checksum.

Given that you are an upstream (Debian) developer, I've added you to
Ubuntu Bug Control.  Thanks for helping out!

--
Brian Murray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature