ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Nick Rosbrook <nick.rosbrook@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My name is Nick Rosbrook (enr0n on IRC and elsewhere), and I am a
member of the Foundations team at Canonical. Please see below my
application for ubuntu-bugcontrol.

1. 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, I promise to be polite to all bug reporters. I have signed the
Ubuntu Code of Conduct (see https://launchpad.net/~enr0n).

2. Have you read Bugs/Triage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status and
Bugs/Importance? Do you have any questions about that documentation?

Yes, I have read the various wiki pages at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/, and I continue to use these pages as
reference. I do not have any questions about the documentation at this
time.

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.

Common examples of sensitive data include usernames, passwords, and
private IP addresses. Many forms of data may be considered sensitive
to different users, and we should carefully consider all crash report
data before making it public.

4. Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are
interested in helping out with?

In my work on the Foundations team, I focus primarily on systemd and
ubuntu-release-upgrader bugs.

5. 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.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+bug/1966203 - After investigating
the issue and identifying a snapd udev rule as the root cause, I set
the bug status accordingly for snapd and systemd. The importance
should be low because the bug only results in unnecessary error
messages, and a simple workaround exists.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jammy/+source/ubuntu-release-upgrader/+bug/1969786
- I asked the reporter to run apport-collect to gather logs, and then
was able to trace the exception and suggest a partial fix. I also
added the appropriate rls tag for further discussion with the
Foundations team. The importance should be high because the bug has a
severe effect on a small number of users attempting upgrades.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jammy/+source/systemd/+bug/1979952 -
I was able to reproduce the bug using the reporter information, so I
added rls tags to discuss with Foundations. After deciding we wanted
to work on it for Jammy and Kinetic, I created a test plan and
completed the SRU template. The importance should be medium because it
has a severe impact on an uncommon NFS configuration.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-docker-images/+bug/1988300 - Since I
knew the root cause was in systemd packaging, I updated the bug status
in systemd to confirmed, and marked the others as invalid. I provided
justification for this in a comment. The importance should be high
because it makes systemd-resolved uninstallable in Docker images.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-release-upgrader/+bug/1987720
- Using the log files collected by apport, I was able to identify a
problematic PPA as the root cause. I provided this explanation with a
suggestion on how to fix it, and marked the bug as incomplete until I
heard back from the reporter. When they responded that my suggestion
worked, I marked the bug as invalid. I also update the bug title to
make it clear that a specific PPA caused the issue, which may be
helpful if other users experience issues due to the same PPA. Since
the bug was invalid there is no need to assign an importance.

Thanks for taking the time to review my application.

Best,
Nick