ubuntu-defect-analysts team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 05:40:23PM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
>    I was working through the bugs pulling together the agenda for this
> week, and noticed a significant number of the A2 ISO testing bugs
> haven't been looked at yet.  For instance, state New has 9 (out of 69).
> Also there are some with importance that hasn't been set
> ( importance=undefined 12/39).
> http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/report
> 
>    To get the bugs to the attention of developers, they generally need
> to be confirmed (ideally triaged), and have the importance set.
> To find the release critical ones early (generally high/critical and
> milestoned by an analyst or developer to the release), maximizes our
> chances of getting them fixed. 
> 
>    Given these are bugs found during testing of the A2 iso images,
> mostly from the mandatory tests, I tend to give them a higher bit of
> focus, since they're likely to reoccur in A3 testing if nothing is
> done.   
> 
>    Where some help is needed, is that there seems to be a gap between
> the bugs being reported, and a scrub to get them all with accurate
> importance set and figured out if real or not.   Note, this is just
> specifically for the ones found during iso testing.   
> 
>    Now not all of these bugs are in each of your teams, but some of them
> are in packages your team cares about.  For those packages that your
> team cares about,  does it make sense for each of the analysts to take a
> pass at the bugs, and make sure the state and importance are accurate?

Yes, to the best of our abilities.

I had deliberately left http://launchpad.net/bugs/806453 in a New state
because I am not in a position to recreate the issue and thus Confirm
it.  I did however set an Importance, bring it up with my team and get
it sorted though.

--
Brian Murray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature