ubuntu-defect-analysts team mailing list archive

[Brian Murray <brian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 07:08:54PM -0500, Kate Stewart wrote:
> 
> >    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?
> > Other suggestions on how we can get quicker proper disposition
> > (importance set and milestoned/release targetted if appropriate) of the
> > ISO bugs?   We probably need to identify the gap packages and figure out
> > if a team needs to care about them or not. 
> 
> Here are the bugs that have a status and importance that still looks a
> worrysome to me. 
> 
> Bug # 	Title
> Affects 				Status 		Importance
> Assignee 	702283 	usb-creator doesn't create EFI-bootable USB
> sticks
> usb-creator (Ubuntu) 			Confirmed 	Undecided
> None

Looking at this bug in particular there is no indication that anybody
encountered this issue with Alpha 2 of 11.10.  This isn't the first time
this has happened either I seem to recall have to dig through each test
result to find out the relationship between the bug and tester who
encountered it.  Point being that is far from an ideal process.  I think
the ISO testing documentation should be updated to indicate that one
must comment on the bug indicating what test case they were using and
with what image they encountered the bug.  Otherwise we are forced to
either chase down the tester or wait for a reply in the bug report.

--
Brian Murray

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature