Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
In my opinion with multiple communication channels we risk to have a lot
of duplicates and a significant loss in time/efficiency. For example
different groups working on the same problem on IRC, on ML, by mail...
no.
we should have only one channel for bug assignation, then the group
that work on it can use any medium he wants :-)
it's not always posible to use for bugtest the very machine we
communicate with or an other machine nearby. in most case I have to
disconnect, boot the given version, test, reboot and reconnect...
and don't you think we should begin with the olders bugs, that is 10.1
ones?
I see the things like this:
* take a bug
* read the logs
* If the bug is old, but was studied, write a note on it to ask the
owners if they still intend to work on it (if not, close it as fixed
or wontfix)
* for remaining bugs write on the wiki a summary showing mostly what
HW/SW configuration it needs.
this anybody can do. then if you have the necessary HW and with the
last distro version (10.3) try to reproduce the bug. If you can, go on
and try to fix, if you can't, log this and close the bug...
In my opinion _no old bug should stay open_ if they are not worked on
for fixing. and we know this will only happen for security ones.
please edit and enhance this todo list :-)
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
Lucien Dodin, inventeur
http://lucien.dodin.net/index.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
