ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Alberto Salvia Novella <es20490446e@xxxxxxxxx>]

Looks pretty cool. On the other hand these are the things that I think 
could be improved:


------------------
 🐞 SHORTER TITLE
------------------

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1657440)
> -- Added more informations to title

Jonas Diekmann:
> - apt won't redownload Release.gpg
> + apt won't redownload Release.gpg after inconsistent cache updates
> + made while UCA is being updated

I think that the previous title was somehow better. As the extra 
verbosity really doesn't ease looking for the bug, bug rather it hides 
its core principle.

This can appear trivial, but when having many bugs listed together it 
can make a sensible difference.

(https://elsmar.com/Identify_Waste/img011.jpg)


-----------------------
 💻 SYSTEM INFORMATION
-----------------------

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1657440)

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/deja-dup/+bug/1657092)

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gksu/+bug/51633)

In these reports:

- In the tag list, there isn't any release first name listed. So 
searches by release won't be able to find the report.

- There's no information about the user's system 
(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Triage/Enough%20information/System%20information)


----------------------
 🔇 SILENCE IS GOLDER
----------------------

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1657440)
> -- Asked on #ubuntu-bugs to triage this.

This is a common practise, but I recommend not doing it. People shall 
communicate only when there's an abnormality, not when doing ordinary 
work. Otherwise you end getting a big wave of irrelevant messages.

(https://eriskusnadi.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/push-pull-system.png)

The moment a bug is confirmed it automatically appears in my work-flow 
as requiring importance to be set, so noticing me about that really does 
nothing:

(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Importance/Lists%20of%20bugs)


-------------
 💟 PAPERCUT
-------------

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/deja-dup/+bug/1657092)

(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Triage):
> If the bug is trivial to fix, is it marked as affecting the
> "hundredpapercuts" project?


------------------
 📤 STABLE UPDATE
------------------

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/deja-dup/+bug/1657092)

(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Triage/Classify%20as%20a%20stable%20release%20update):
> If a bug falls into one of these cases:
> ...
> - Fixing it has little chance of messing other things up
> ...
> You shall nominate it for a stable release update.


-------------------------
 🔘 IMPLICIT INFORMATION
-------------------------

Jonas Diekmann:
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/deja-dup/+bug/1664015)
> Using a canned respond.

This is also a common practise, but also unnecessary. Saying nothing 
would have had the same effect, as Launchpad already states:
> Remember, this bug report is a duplicate of bug #1623835.
> Comment here only if you think the duplicate status is wrong.


---------------
 🔻 BOTTOM-LINE
---------------

If you improve these small things I will vote for you application for 
sure. That said the rest of things looks quite good to me, specially the 
importances part where people tend to choose worse.

Also I know the triaging manual is somehow messy, so missing some of 
these points is rather easy. That's why I usually recommend using this 
manual instead: (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Triage)

Thanks and good luck! 😉

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature